SHAKSPERE'S  PLAYS: 


THE  SEPARATE  EDITIONS  OF,  WITH  THE  ALTERATIONS 
DONE  BY  VARIOUS  HANDS  ; 


H.    T.    HALL, 


Author  of   "  Shaksperean   Fly   Leaves"    "  The  May    Queen, 
"  The  Dramatic  Album"  &c.,  &c. 


SECOND   EDITION. 


CAMBRIDGE  : 

H.     W,     WALLIS,     BOOKSELLER,     SIDNEY    STREET, 

1880. 

PRICE   ONE   SHILLING  AND   SIXPENCE. 


SHAKSPERE'S  PLAYS: 

THE  SEPARATE  EDITIONS  OF,  WITH  THE  ALTERATIONS 
DONE  BY  VARIOUS  HANDS  ; 


BY 

H.   T.   HALL, 

Author  of  "  Shaksperean  Fly  Leaves"    "The  May   Queen" 
"  The  Dramatic  Album"  &c.,  &c. 


SECOND  EDITION. 


CAMBRIDGE  : 
H,    W,    WALLIS,     BOOKSELLER,    SIDNEY    STREET. 

1880. 


TO   THE   READER. 


WN  preparing  a  new  and  enlarged  edition  of  this  brief 
(5)  chronicle  of  the  various  revised,  altered,  and 
so-called  improved  versions  of  the  Plays  of  William 
Shakspere,  the  author  does  not  expect  to  meet  with 
general  accord;  yet  he  trusts  that  the  admirers  of 
the  foremost  poet  of  the  world  will  not  take  umbrage 
at  his  effort,  "  for  never  anything  can  be  amiss,  when 
simpieness  and  duty  tender  it."  He  has  sought  by 
close  attention,  "correction  and  instruction,"  to  make 
the  pamphlet  reliable ;  and,  with  all  due  "  reason  and 
respect,"  he  hopes  that  his  labour  of  love  will  not 
turn  out  to  be  "  Love's  Labour  Lost." 


CONTENTS 


PAGE. 

Introduction               ..             ..              ..  ..                iii. 

COMEDIES  : 

The   Tempest                . .             . .  . .                      7 

The   Two   Gentlemen   of  Verona  . .             . .             1 1 

Merry  Wives   of  Windsor         ..  ,.              ..12 

Twelfth   Night                      , ,  . .             . .             14 

Measure   for   Measure                ..  ..              ..15 

Much  Ado  About  Nothing  ..             ..             17 

A   Midsummer   Night's   Dream  ..              ..18 

Love's   Labour  Lost  ..             ..             19 

The   Merchant   of  Venice         . .  . .                     20 

As  You   Like   It                  . .  . .             . .             21 

All's   Well   That   Ends  Well  ..             ..22 

Taming  of  the   Shrew       . .  . .             . .             23 

The  Winter's   Tale                    ..  ..             ..24 

The   Comedy  of  Errors  . .             . .             26 

HISTORIES  : 

King  John                      . .              . .  . .              . .     28 

Richard   II.            ..              ..  ..              ..             29 

Henry   IV.,    Part  I.                    ..  ..              -.31 

„      II.           ..  ..             ..             32 

„       V.,  34 

„       VI.,    Part   1 35 

„      n.                ..  ..             ..    ib. 

„     in.  ..            ..            37 

Richard  III.  ib. 

Henry  VIII.          ..             ..  ..             ..             41 

TRAGEDIES  : 

Macbeth          . .             . .             . .  . .             . .     43 

Troilus   and   Cressida         . .  . .             . .            47 

Timon  of  Athens        . .             . .  , .             . .     48 

Coriolanus              . .             . .  . .             . .             50 

Julius  Caesar                . .             . .  . .             "53 

Antony  and  Cleopatra       . .  . .             . .            55 

Cymbeline       ..             ..             ..  ..            •  •     59 

Titus  Andronicus                . .  . .             . .            62 

Pericles                  ..             ,.  ..             ..            63 

King  Lear                    . .             . .  . .             . .     64 

Romeo  and  Juliet              . .  . .            . .            69 

Hamlet            ..            ..             ..  ..            ..72 

Othello                   ..             ..  ..             ..            74 


INTRODUCTION. 


THE  immense  popularity  of  the  works  of  Shakspere  is 
most  clearly  shown  by  the  very  great  number  of  editions 
which  have  been  brought  out,  numbering  not  less  than 
542  in  his  native  language,  and  also  by  the  multitudinous 
editions  of  his  Plays  which  have  been  separately  pub- 
lished. The  universality  of  knowledge  contained  in  the 
dramas  of  Shakspere — their  thorough  development  ot 
humanity,  possessing  as  they  do  more  actual  wisdom 
than  the  whole  body  of  English  learning — have  won  for 
them  the  highest  appreciation  and  general  acceptance. 
Not  only  in  the  country  of  his  birth,  but  throughout 
Europe- — even  in  the  far  East  and  the  cold  North — have 
the  Plays  of  Shakspere  found  readers  and  translators. 
In  England  his  praises  are  on  all  men's  tongues  who  are 
in  any  way  acquainted  with  English  literature ;  and 
through  the  medium  of  dramatic  representations  they 
have  become  "  as  familiar  as  household  words  "  amongst 
the  play-going  public.  Yet  despite  this  great  popularity, 
but  little  is  known  relative  to  the  manner  in  which  the 
Shaksperean  drama  has  served  the  purposes  of  other 
dramatists,  who  in  their  "  profound  conceit "  have 
thought  they  could  improve,  adorn  and  beautify  the 


IV. 

works  of  our  many-sided  master.  Little  is  known  how 
his  works  have  been  cut,  trimmed  and  manipulated  by 
various  dramatic  writers  and  actors.  The  general 
public  in  the  past  century  and  even  in  the  present  one, 
have  not  unfrequently  "  taken  these  tenders  for  true  pay 
which  are  not  sterling,"  and  applauded  lines  and  scenes 
which  were  never  written  by  Shakspere.  His  plots 
have  been  altered  and  his  language  has  been  fashioned 
afresh  by  each  reviser  and  improver  of  his  works,  so 
that  they  have  lost  their  force,  brilliancy  and  character- 
isation. He  has  had  "sick  interpreters,"  whose  bad 
doings  have  been  "  cried  up  for  his  best  art,"  and  these 
"  continual  plodders  "  have  "  won  authority  from  other's 
books."  The  "justness  of  each  act"  has  often  been 
destroyed  by  being  "  patched  with  cloth  of  any  colour," 
which  these  "  daws,"  who  "  have  been  at  a  great  feast 
of  languages  and  stolen  the  scraps,"  have  sought  to 
tack  on.  His  "greatness  subjected  to  the  breath  of 
every  fool,"  who,  "  crammed  with  arrogancy,  spleen  and 
pride/'  have  sought  to  "  carry  his  honours  ever,"  and 
"  in  defect  of  judgment "  ripened  "  in  the  sunshine  of 
his  favour,"  and  in  the  "  shadow  of  such  greatness."  In 
some  instances  our  bard  has  had  to  incur  public  odium 
for  work  not  his  own,  and  thus  "  the  greatest  are  mis- 
thought  for  things  that  others  do."  "  The  world's  large 
tongue  "  has  now  found  utterance  on  his  behalf,  and 
these  "thieves  of  occasion,"  who  have  drawn  out  the 
"  thread  of  their  verbosity"  much  "  finer  than  the  staple 
of  their  argument,"  "  now  stand  upon  slippery  ground," 
and  are  fast  falling  into  the  waters  of  that  lake  which  is 
known  by  the  name  of  Oblivion. 

Some  of  the  alterations  which  have  been  made  are  of 
the  strangest  character,  and  none  more  so  than  those 
made  by  Davenant  and  Dryden.  The  circle  for  whom 


V. 

they  sought  to  "  gild  refined  gold  and  to  paint  the  lily,7' 
indulged  in  lewdness  and  profanity,  and  there  cannot  be 
any  question  that  the  Court  of  the  latest  Stuarts  was 
marked  by  conduct  of  a  libidinous  nature.  The  altera- 
tions made  by  succeeding  dramatists  and  actors  have 
in  no  way  added  to  the  worth  of  Shakspere,  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  have  demonstrated  the  inability  of  those 
who  made  the  alterations  to  comprehend  the  greatness 
of  Shakspere,  who  seems  to  grow  ever  more  in  wisdom 
and  truth  as  we  ourselves  in  wisdom  grow.  The 
wonderful  vitality  of  the  works  of  Shakspere  is  evidenced 
in  the  fact,  that  though  so  frequently  weighted  with  the 
dross  of  others,  they  still  keep  the  stage  and  are  more 
than  ever  read.  So  great  is  the  influence  of  his  works, 
that  in  the  past  and  in  the  present,  he  has  been — 

"  the  charmer  of  each  age, 

Whose  thoughts  so  subtly  with  our  growth  have  grown, 
We  are  not  conscious  they  are  not  our  own." 

Each  succeeding  year  adds  to  the  number  of  students 
and  readers  of  the  works  of  the  "  sweet  swan  of  Avon  ; " 
and  this  considerable  increase  in  the  number  of  students 
and  readers  of  Shakspere' s  works  during  the  last 
hundred  years  has  been  productive  of  several  advan- 
tages :  it  has  led  to  a  full  and  searching  inquiry  into 
the  text  of  Shakspere,  by  a  close  comparison  between 
the  early  folio  and  quarto  editions  of  his  works,  and 
the  result  of  this  enquiry  has  been  the  gradual  disuse  of 
most  of  the  so-called  improvements  and  alterations  of 
his  plays,  and  the  diffusion  of  a  more  extended  know- 
ledge of  his  original  text,  and  of  the  art  and  manner 
he  has  displayed  in  the  construction  of  his  dramas ;  at 
the  same  time,  it  has  also  enforced  a  greater  necessity 
on  the  part  of  theatrical  managers  to  adhere  more 
closely  to  the  original  text  when  seeking  to  represent 


VI. 

the  poet's  works.  But  three  of  the  alterations  may  now 
be  said  to  keep  the  stage  :  Richard  III.  by  Colley  Gibber, 
King  Lear  by  Nahum  Tate,  and  Katharine  and  Petruchio 
by  David  Garrick ;  and  these  three  versions  are  in  all 
probability  about  the  worst  that  were  ever  made.  Most 
of  the  versions  which  have  been  produced  in  the  last 
twenty-five  years  on  the  English  stage  keep  very  close 
to  the  text  of  Shakspere,  more  particularly  those  of 
Phelps,  C.  Kean,  Calvert  and  Irving ;  the  first  named 
having  edited  an  excellent  edition  of  the  works  of 
Shakspere,  which  displays  true  scholarship,  combined 
with  a  reverent  love  for  the  great  master's  productions. 
The  other  acting  editions  are  chiefly  remarkable  for 
their  sins  of  omission  and  transposition,  than  for  any 
other  offence  against  the  true  text.  The  purport  of  the 
following  pages,  is  to  show  the  number  and  nature  of 
the  alterations  that  have  been  effected,  and  also  to  give 
the  number  of  editions  of  the  separate  plays  that  have 
been  printed  and  published. 


COMEDIES. 


THE  TEMPEST,  45  Editions.  In  1667,  this  play  was 
altered  by  John  Dryden  and  Sir  W.  Davenant,  and 
produced  at  the  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  Theatre,  on 
November  yth.  Of  this  alteration  eleven  editions  were 
published:  eight  in  quarto  and  three  in  12  mo.  This 
joint  alteration  embraced  omissions  and  additions,  most 
of  the  latter  being  weak  and  in  extreme  bad  taste.  In 
this  version,  the  authors  have  introduced  Hippolito,  a 
man  who  has  never  seen  a  woman,  and  Sycorax,  a 
sister-monster  to  Caliban  ;  they  have  also  given  Pros- 
pero  another  daughter,  called  Dorinda,  and  the  quaint 
and  delicate  Ariel  was  provided  with  a  female  com- 
panion called  Milcha.  Trinculo  is  converted  into  the 
boatswain,  and  speaks  a  good  deal  of  the  language 
which  belongs  of  right  to  Stephano;  and  two  fresh 
sailors,  Ventoso  and  Mustacho,  are  added  to  the  dramatic 
personae.  In  the  4th  act  Hippolito  is  wounded,  and 
Ariel  says  of  him  — 

"  His  soul  stood  almost  at  life's  door,  all  bare 
And  naked,  shivering  like  boys  upon  a  river's 
Bank,  and  loth  to  tempt  the  cold  air,  but  I  took 
Her,  and  stopp'd  her  in." 

Dorinda  asks,  "  What  is  the  soul  ?  " 


A  small  blue  thing  that  runs  about  within  us. 
Dor.        Then  I  have  seen  it  in  a  frosty  morning  run 
Smoaking  from  my  mouth." 


8 

This  is  the  kind  of  balderdash  that  has  been  thrust  into 
Shakspere's  play,  and  was  looked  upon  and  valued  by 
its  authors  as  an  improvement  upon  the  elder  bard.  In 
1673,  it  was  altered  by  Shadwell  and  converted  into  an 
opera,  with  a  choice  selection  of  new  scenes  and  new 
machinery.  It  was  produced  at  Dorset  Garden  Theatre 
with  great  success,  the  treasury  of  the  theatre  realising 
a  large  sum  by  its  production.*  In  1674,  The  Mock 
Tempest,  or  the  Enchanted  Castle,  a  farce  in  five  acts, 
by  Duffet,f  was  produced.  The  great  success  of 
ShadwelPs  version  at  the  other  theatre  was  the  cause  of 
this  farce  or  burlesque  being  brought  out  at  the  Theatre 
Royal.  There  is  not  much  in  this  piece,  but  the  song 
of  Ariel,  "  Where  the  bee  sucks,  there  suck  I,"  is  very 
happily  imitated — 

"  Where  good  ale  is,  there  suck  I, 

In  a  cobbler's  stall  I  lie, 

While  the  watch  are  passing  by ; 

Then  about  the  streets  I  fly, 

After  cullies  merrily : 

And  I  merrily,  merrily  take  up  my  clo'se, 

Under  the  watch  and  the  constable's  nose." 

In  1756,  David  Garrick  altered  it  to  an  opera;    the 


*  Great  attention  to  show  and  scenic  effect  seems  to  have  been  prevalent  at  this 
time,  for  Dryden,  in  one  of  his  prologues  spoken  at  the  opening  of  the  new  Theatre  Royal, 
on  March  24th,  1674,  thus  alludes  to  it  :— 

"  'Twere  folly  now  a  stately  pile  to  raise, 
To  build  a  playhouse  while  you  throw  down  plays, 
While  scenes,  machines  and  empty  operas  reign, 
And  for  the  pencil,  you  the  pen  disdain." 

t  This  author  wrote  two  other  burlesques :  "  The  Empress  of  Morocco  "  and  "  Pschye 
Debauched,"  both  of  which  were  produced  at  the  Theatre  Royal.  That  the  public  taste  for 
this  class  of  entertainment  did  not  long  continue,  is  evidenced  by  some  verses  written 
soon  after  the  production  of  these  pieces  :— 

"  The  dullest  scribblers  some  admirers  found, 
And  The  Mock  Tempest  was  a  while  renown'd  ; 
But  this  low  stuff  the  town  at  last  despis'd, 
And  scorn'd  the  folly  that  they  once  had  priz'd." 


music  being  by  Mr.  Smith.  Prospero  in  this  version  is 
made  to  sing,  and  some  of  the  other  parts  are  borrowed 
from  Dryden.  There  is  a  lot  of  arrant  nonsense  sung  in 
the  opera,  and  none  more  so  than  that  sung  by  Ariel, 
from  Dryden's  Tyrannic  Love  : 

•"  Merry,  merry,  merry,  we  sail  from  the  east, 
Half  tippled  at  a  rainbow  feast." 

In  1776  it  was  altered  by  R.  B.  Sheridan;  the 
songs  with  music  by  T.  Linley,  jun.  Two  editions  of 
this  version  appeared.  In  1780  it  was  altered  and 
produced  as  "  The  Shipwreck,"  at  the  Patagonian 
Theatre.  In  1789,  J.  P.  Kemble  altered  it  from  the 
Dryden  and  Davenant  version.  Kemble  restored  a 
good  deal  of  Shakspere,  though  he  retained  most  of 
Dryden's  unnatural  additions.  This  renovated  version 
was  produced  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre,  on  October  i3th, 
1789,  and  acted  about  fifteen  times.  In  Act  i  of  this 
version  Ferdinand  does  not  appear,  and  it  concludes  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  Dryden  version,  with  a  scene 
between  Miranda  and  Dorinda.  Act  2  opens  with  a 
dull  song  by  Ariel,  then  the  wreck  of  the  ship,  which 
sinks ;  Trinculo  swims  ashore ;  the  scene  between 
Alonzo  and  others  is  omitted.  Caliban,  Stephano  and 
Trinculo  appear  as  in  Shakspere Js  play ;  then  follows  a 
long  selection  from  Dryden,  and  the  act  terminates  with 
a  scene  between  Miranda  and  Ferdinand  from  the  first 
act  of  the  original  play.  Act  3  opens  with  the  first 
meeting  of  Miranda  and  Ferdinand  from  Shakspere ; 
then  follows  Caliban,  Stephano  and  Trinculo  as  in 
Shakspere  :  Prospero,  as  per  Dryden,  allows  Miranda  to 
see  Ferdinand,  and  when  she  is  left  alone  she  sings  a 
song ;  Ferdinand  enters  with  a  log.  This  part  is  from 
Shakspere ;  they  then  sing  a  duet  and  the  scene  is  con- 

B 


10 

eluded  from  Dryden.  The  banquet  scene  is  made  very 
short  and  the  act  concludes  with  a  duet  and  chorus  of 
furies.  Act  4  begins  with  Shakspere,  and  the  rest  part 
thereof  is  derived  from  Dryden.  Act  5  is  mainly  com- 
posed of  Dryden  ;  Prospero's  abjuration  of  his  magical 
power,  as  written  by  Shakspere,  is  omitted,  excepting 
some  three  or  four  lines  ;  then  five  weak  lines  by  Kemble 
introduce  the  masque  of  Neptune  and  Amphitrite,  and 
Ariel  and  the  spirits  conclude  the  play  with  "  Where 
the  bee  sucks/'  &c.  Miss  Farren  personated  the  cha- 
racter of  Dorinda,  Mrs.  Goodall  that  of  Hippolito,  and 
Mrs.  Crouch,  Miranda.  Three  editions  of  this  alteration 
were  published:  one  in  1789,  1806  and  1807.  In  1815, 
Kemble  made  still  further  alterations  in  this  comedy,  by 
omitting  more  of  Dryden  and  restoring  more  of  Shak- 
spere. Neither  of  these  alterations  add  to  the  credit  of 
Kemble,  either  as  an  actor  or  Shaksperean  scholar,  for 
he  must  still  be  classed  with  those  who  have  won 
disgrace  for  themselves  by  mutilating  the  text  of  Shak- 
spere. In  1821,  this  play  was  again  converted  into  an 
opera,  and  produced  at  Covent  Garden  Theatre  on  May 
1 5th.  This  mutilation  is  one  among  the  worst  ever 
perpetrated  by  our  English  play-vampers,  who,  secure 
in  their  own  puny  powers,  fail  not  to  introduce  a  farrago 
of  unmeaning  nonsense  into  the  works  of  the  great 
poet.  Mr.  Macready  was  the  Prospero  of  the  opera ; 
Miss  Stephens,  Dorinda;  Miss  Hallande,  Miranda; 
Miss  Foote,  Ariel ;  Mr.  Emery,  Caliban ;  Mr.  W.  Farren, 
Stephano ;  Trinculo,  Blanchard  ;  Alonso,  Egerton  ;  Fer- 
dinand, Abbott ;  and  Hippolito,  Duruset.  The  addi- 
tional songs  and  dialogue  were  added  by  Reynolds. 
On  May  28th,  1824,  Shakspere's  Tempest,  after  a  lapse 
of  fifteen  years,  was  revived  for  one  night.  This,  how- 
ever, was  not  Shakspere's  play,  but  an  excised  version 


11 

of  Dryden  and  Davenant,  for  two  or  three  of  their 
characters  were  retained.  It  was  played  for  the  benefit 
of  Madame  Vestris,  and  it  was  cast  as  follows : — 
Prospero,  Mr.  Macready ;  Ferdinand,  Mr.  S.  Penley ; 
Caliban,  Browne  ;  Stephano,  Dowton  ;  Trinculo,  Gattie ; 
Alonso,  Archer ;  Hippolito,  Miss  S.  Booth ;  Miranda, 
Miss  Povey  ;  Dorinda,  Miss  Stephens  ;  Ariel,  first  time, 
Madame  Vestris.  Two  editions  of  the  Tempest  have 
been  published  in  Phonetic  spelling:  one  in  1849  and 
one  in  1864. 

THE  Two  GENTLEMEN  OF  VERONA,  13  Editions. 
In  1763,  this  Comedy,  with  alterations  and  additions  by 
Benjamin  Victor,  was  produced  at  Drury  Lane.  The 
alterations  chiefly  consist  of  the  transpositions  of  scenes, 
the  combining  of  one  act  with  another,  the  omission  of 
many  speeches,  the  curtailment  of  others,  and  the  intro- 
duction of  speeches  written  by  Victor  himself;  such 
speeches,  instead  of  adding  to  the  strength  of  the 
comedy  or  to  the  improvement  of  its  acting,  very  mate- 
rially detract  from  its  general  merits,  and  serve  only  to 
produce  much  confusion  and  absurdity.  Two  fresh 
scenes  were  added  to  the  fifth  act  by  Victor  for  the 
purpose  of  introducing  Speed  and  Lance,  and  they  are 
entirely  unmeaning  and  unnecessary.  Victor  has  also 
added  the  following  lines  as  a  tag,  which  are  spoken  by 
Proteus  : — 

"  Thanks,  generous  Valentine  : — and  I  myself 
Will  be  the  trumpet  of  my  Julia's  worth, 
Her  stedfast  faith,  her  still  enduring  love, 
And  of  my  own  misdoings — Pardon  me, 
Ye  who  have  ever  known  what  'tis  to  err  ! 
And  be  this  truth  by  all  the  world  confess'd, 
That  lovers  must  be  faithful  to  be  bless'd." 

In    1790,  this  comedy  was  revived  at  Covent  Garden 


12 

Theatre,  with  the  addition  of  songs,  duetts,  glees  and 
choruses  selected  from  the  entire  works  of  Shakspere. 
In  1808,  this  comedy  was  altered  by  J.  P.  Kemble, 
whose  alterations  are  chiefly  based  upon  Victor's  ver- 
sion. The  additions  made  by  Kemble  are  in  very  bad 
taste,  for  he  has  adopted  some  of  Victor's  worst  altera- 
tions, at  the  same  time  accepting  the  consolidation  of 
the  first  and  fourth  scenes  in  the  second  act  of  the 
original  play.  The  poverty  of  thought  and  language 
which  marks  the  additions,  when  compared  with  the 
comedy  originally  written,  serves  to  prove  that  Kemble 
was  less  familiar  with  the  play  of  Shakspere  than  he 
was  with  the  mangled  abortion  of  Victor's.  In  1821, 
Reynolds  degraded  this  comedy  into  an  opera,  which 
was  produced  at  Covent  Garden  Theatre,  on  November 
2gth.  This  version  was  never  printed,  but  it  was  said 
that  the  speeches  were  so  clipt,  altered,  transposed  and 
added  to,  that  the  strength  and  sweetness  of  Shakspere's 
language  was  completely  marred.  The  characterisation 
of  the  comedy  was  also  in  a  great  measure  destroyed, 
and  the  whole  production  was  executed  in  the  worst 
taste.  What  Dry  den  said  of  D'Urfey  is  equally  appli- 
cable to  Reynolds, — "  let  him  alone,  he  will  do  some- 
thing worse  presently." 

THE  MERRY  WIVES  OF  WINDSOR,  37  Editions. 
This  is  one  of  the  most  mirthful  comedies  that  Shak- 
spere ever  wrote.  Its  action  is  not  only  rapid  but  it  is 
extremely  varied.  Its  characters  are  so  broadly  marked 
that  they  cannot  well  fail  to  please  ;  yet  in  conjunction 
with  many  other  examples  of  the  Shaksperean  drama, 
it  has  undergone  much  altering  and  adapting  at  the 
hands  of  the  self-installed  improvers  of  the  bard's  text. 
In  1702,  John  Dennis  tried  his  cunning  hand  in  seeking 


13 

to  destroy  the  great  master's  work,  by  adapting  this 
comedy  and  making  it  his  own.  His  piece  was  called 
"  The  Comical  Gallant,  or  the  Amours  of  Sir  John 
Falstaff.'5  In  this  alteration  Dennis  has  retained  about 
one-half  of  Shakspere's  play,  and  he  has  also  changed 
the  language  of  the  scenes  which  he  has  retained.  This 
manipulation  of  the  words  of  the  poet  by  Dennis  proves 
his  incapacity  as  a  Shaksperean  critic,  and  shows  how 
valueless  must  be  any  opinion  which  he  has  put  forth 
on  the  merits  of  Shakspere.  The  whole  conduct  of  the 
comedy  is  changed  and  Dennis  has  added  one  new 
character, — the  host  of  the  Bull,  a  brother  of  Mrs. 
Ford  ;  Mrs.  Dorothy  Tearsheet  is  substituted  for  Mrs. 
Quickly,  and  Fenton  and  Anne  Page  are  much  enlarged. 
The  following  syllabus  of  Dennis's  comedy  will  show 
the  changes  : — 

Act  ist  begins  with  Fenton  and  the  Host  of  the 
Garter — then  comes  a  scene  between  Fenton  and  Anne 
Page — Shallow,  Slender  and  Sir  Hugh  enter — Falstaff 
discharges  Pistol  and  Nym — Mrs.  Page  and  Mrs.  Ford 
compare  the  letters — the  act  concludes  with  a  poor 
scene  between  Page  and  Ford. 

Act  2.  Mrs.  Dorothy  comes  to  Falstaff  with  a 
message  from  Mrs.  Ford  and  Mrs.  Page — Ford  visits 
Falstaff  as  Broom.  This  scene  is  materially  altered. 
Dr.  Caius  and  Sir  Hugh  quarrel,  and  are  reconciled. 

Act  3.  The  scene  lies  at  the  Bull  Inn — Falstaff  and 
Mrs.  Ford  meet  by  appointment — Mrs.  Page  enters, 
disguised  as  Captain  Dingboy — she  pretends  to  have  an 
intrigue  with  Mrs.  Ford  and  frightens  Falstaff  by  dis- 
charging a  pistol  at  him — on  the  approach  of  Ford, 
Falstaff  is  carried  off  in  a  buck  basket — Mrs.  Page  beats 
Ford — her  peruke  falls  off  and  she  is  discovered. 

Act  4.     Falstaff  and  Ford,  as  Broom,  have  a  second 


14 

meeting — the  Host  of  the  Bull  tells  Ford  that  Falstaff 
and  Mrs.  Ford  are  to  meet  at  Herne's  Oak — Anne  Page 
has  a  scene  with  Fenton  and  another  with  Slender — the 
latter  is  chiefly  from  Shakspere's  first  act. 

Act  5.  Mrs.  Ford  says  her  husband  is  gone  to 
London — Falstaff  enters  to  Mrs.  Ford,  and  Mrs.  Page, 
as  Herne  the  Hunter — a  terrible  symphony  is  heard — 
Falstaff  secretes  himself  in  a  tuft  of  trees — the  pretended 
fairies  bring  in  Ford,  dressed  as  Falstaff — they  sing  a 
song  and  beat  Ford  to  a  stockfish — Falstaff  escapes  un- 
hurt— Ford  is  cured  of  his  jealousy — Slender  and  Dr. 
Caius  enter,  both  of  them  in  women's  clothes  and 
masked — Fenton  and  Anne  Page  enter,  unmasked — 
Slender  and  Dr.  Caius  fight,  for  the  Host  of  the  Garter, 
disguised  as  a  parson,  has  married  Dr.  Caius  to  Slender. 

In  1797,  J.  P.  Kemble  altered  this  comedy,  and  a 
second  edition  of  his  alteration  was  published  in  1804. 
In  1824,  this  comedy  was  converted  into  an  opera  by 
Reynolds,  and  produced  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre  on  June 
i  st.  The  alterations  and  additions  made  in  this  version 
were  wretchedly  conceived  and  equally  as  badly  exe- 
cuted, yet  the  opera  ran  for  thirty-two  nights.  The 
manner  in  which  the  songs  were  introduced  by  Reynolds 
one  example  will  suffice.  In  the  scene,  after  the  duel 
between  Sir  Hugh  and  Dr.  Caius  had  terminated,  and 
the  characters  had  withdrawn,  Fenton  enters  and  says, 
"  How  I  love  this  spot,  where  dear  Anne  Page  so  often 
has  met  me  and  confessed  her  love  ! — Ha !  I  think  the 
sky  is  overcast, — the  wind  too  blows  like  an  approaching 
storm  ;  well — let  it  blow  on — I  am  prepared  to  brave  its 
fury,"  and  he  then  sings  "  Blow,  blow,  thou  winter's 
wind." 

TWELFTH  NIGHT,  20  Editions.    In  1 663,  this  Comedy 


15 

was  altered  and  produced  at  the  Theatre,  Lincoln's  Inn 
Fields,  the  character  of  Viola  being  omitted  in  the 
representation.  The  omission  of  Viola  must  have  ma- 
terially detracted  from  the  interest  of  the  comedy,  for 
the  involution  and  perplexity  of  its  plot  is  much  added 
to  through  Viola's  assumption  of  male  attire.  The 
fulness  of  love,  though  tinged  with  melancholy,  which 
marks  the  Duke's  character,  could  have  had  no  develop- 
ment without  the  presence  of  Viola,  whose  love  is  filled 
with  sweet  and  tender  emotion,  and  distinguished  by  its 
grace  and  purity.  In  1703,  this  comedy  was  altered  by 
C.  Burnaby,  and  produced  under  the  title  of  "  Love 
Betrayed,  or  the  Agreeable  Disappointment,"  at  the 
Theatre,  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields.  This  is  a  very  poor 
alteration  of  Shakspere's  comedy,  the  depth  and  power 
of  the  language  is  materially  changed,  though  the  plot 
and  the  main  incidents  are  preserved.  The  names  of 
the  characters  are  changed,  much  of  the  dialogue  is 
written  afresh,  and  two  new  characters,  Pedro,  servant 
to  Sebastian,  and  Dromia,  an  old  lady,  are  introduced. 
Moreno,  Drances,  Roderique  and  Villaretta  are  taken 
from  the  Duke,  Sir  Toby,  Antonio  and  Olivia.  In  the 
year  1820,  Frederic  Reynolds  converted  this  comedy 
into  an  opera,  which  was  produced  at  Covent  Garden 
Theatre,  on  November  8th,  and  it  ran  seventeen  nights. 
This  degradation  of  Shakspere  was  never  printed,  and 
wisely  so,  for  its  author's  sake,  for  his  alterations  were 
said  to  be  of  the  most  wretched  character. 


MEASURE  FOR  MEASURE,  16  Editions.  In  1662, 
this  play  was  altered  by  Sir  W.  jDavenant,  and  produced 
at  Lincoln's  Inn  Theatre,  on  February  i8th,  where 
it  met  with  great  success.  It  was  published  under 


16 

the  title  of  "  The  Law  against  Lovers."*  In  this 
version,  Davenant  has  combined  the  two  plays  of 
Measure  for  Measure  and  Much  Ado  about  Nothing,  for 
the  characters  of  Benedick  and  Beatrice  are  added  to 
the  dramatis  personae.  Davenant  has  also  introduced  a 
variety  of  songs  and  dances  in  which  Escalus,  Benedick 
and  Beatrice  take  part.  He  has  also  introduced  a  new 
character,  one  Viola,  a  younger  sister  of  Beatrice,  who 
dances  a  saraband  to  the  accompaniment  of  castag- 
nettes.  He  has  so  altered  the  language  by  cutting  out 
the  poetic  expressions  and  by  the  adoption  of  everyday 
phrases,  that  the  force  and  richness  of  the  language  of 
Shakspere  is  almost  annihilated.  The  following  speech 
from  the  fourth  scene  of  the  first  act  is  a  fair  specimen 
of  how  Davenant  understood  the  elder  bard  and  how  he 
treated  him : — 

"  None,  holy  father,  better  knows  than  you, 
How  I  have  ever  lik'd  a  life  retir'd ; 
And  still  have  weary  of  assemblies  been, 
Where  witless  youth  comes  drest  to  be  ador'd. 
I  have  delivered  to  Lord  Angelo 
(A  man  of  strictness,  and  firm  abstinence), 
My  absolute  pow'r  and  place  here  in  Turin  ; 
And  he  believes  me  travelling  to  Spain  ; 
Now  (pious  sir)  you  will  demand  of  me, 
Why  I  do  this?" 

The  whole  plan  and  organism  of  the  play  is  entirely 
destroyed  by  Davenant,  for  instead  of  a  complete  unity 
of  design,  he  gives  a  series  of  scenes,  intrigues  and 
events  which  produce  the  wildest  and  most  extravagant 
confusion,  destroying  the  characterisation  by  changing 
the  motives  which  engender  action,  and  the  plot  is  so 


* Pepys,  in  his  diary,  thus  alludes  to  this  comedy  :  "I  went  thither  and  saw  '  The  Law 
against  Lovers,'  a  good  play  and  well  performed,  especially  the  little  girl's  (whom  I  never 
saw  act  before)  dancing  and  singing  ;  and  were  it  not  for  her,  the  losse  of  Roxalana  would 
spoil  the  house."— Vol.  I.,  p.  248. 


17 

much  marred,  that  it  becomes  "flat,  stale  and  unpro- 
fitable." In  1700,  this  play  was  much  altered  by  C. 
Gildon,  and  produced  under  the  title  of  "  Beauty,  the 
best  Advocate,"  at  the  Theatre,  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields. 
Many  of  the  alterations  of  Sir  W.  Davenant  were  also 
adopted  by  Gildon,  whose  own  alterations  of  the  Shak- 
sperean  text  are  decidedly  much  worse  than  his  prede- 
cessor. He  omits  the  whole  of  the  comic  characters, 
and  with  the  exception  of  the  scene  between  the  Duke 
and  the  Friar,  the  whole  of  the  first  act  is  omitted. 
Claudio  is  represented  as  privately  married  to  Julietta, 
and  Angelo  to  Mariana.  The  part  of  the  Duke  is 
reduced  to  a  very  insignificant  one,  and  a  strange 
assortment  of  blunders  are  introduced.  Scenes  and 
incidents  are  transposed  and  shuffled  at  his  will,  while 
the  language  is  most  fearfully  mutilated.  To  make 
Shakspere  palatable  to  the  taste  of  the  period,  Gildon 
has  introduced  four  musical  entertainments,  in  each  of 
which  occurs  a  dance,  thus  combining,  as  he  no  doubt 
thought,  the  advantages  of  the  opera  and  the  ballet, 
with  the  language  and  characterisation  of  the  poet.  In 
1789,  J.  P.  Kemble  produced  a  revised  edition  at  Drury 
Lane;  and  in  1803,  another  revised  edition  at  Covent 
Garden  Theatre. 

MUCH  ADO  ABOUT  NOTHING,  28  Editions.  In  1737, 
this  Comedy  was  altered  by  James  Miller,  and  produced 
at  Drury  Lane  Theatre  on  February  28th,  under  the  title 
of  "The  Universal  Passion."  This  alteration  is  one 
among  the  worst  ever  perpetrated,  for  not  content  with 
borrowing  from  and  altering  Shakspere,  Miller  has  also 
borrowed  from  and  altered  Moliere's  "  Princess  of  Elis." 
Though  the  works  of  two  dramatists  are  thus  laid  under 
contribution  to  furnish  this  nondescript  of  a  play,  the 

C 


18 

result  does  not  in  the  slightest  degree  redound  to  the 
credit,  but  rather  to  the  disgrace  of  this  borrower  and 
mutilator  of  other  men's  works.  The  first  four  acts  are 
derived  in  about  equal  portions  from  the  text  of 
Shakspere  and  Moliere,  while  the  adapter,  the  better  to 
strengthen  his  production,  causes  Bellario,  the  Claudio 
of  the  original  comedy,  to  speak  some  lines  from  the 
"  Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona/'  This  version  succeeded 
in  running  nine  nights.  In  1799,  it  was  adapted  by 
J.  P.  Kemble,  and  two  other  editions  were  published  of 
his  adaptation :  one  in  1810  and  one  in  1815. 

A  MIDSUMMER  NIGHT'S  DREAM,*  42  Editions.  In 
1646,  this  Comedy  was  altered  by  Robert  Cox,  and  the 
comical  part  was  published  under  the  title  of  "The 
Merry  conceited  Humours  of  Bottom  the  Weaver,"  and 
again  in  1661.  In  1681,  the  fifth  edition  was  published 
under  the  title  of  "  Piramus  and  Thisbe."  In  1692,  it 
was  represented  as  an  opera,  and  called  "  The  Fairy 
Queen."  Many  changes  are  made  in  this  version,  but 
those  made  in  the  fifth  act  are  of  a  most  singular 
character.  Hippolita  is  omitted,  the  goddess  Juno 
appears  in  a  machine,  the  peacocks  spread  their  tails, 
then  the  scene  changes  to  a  Chinese  garden,  then  a 
male  and  female  Chinese  sing,  six  monkies  dance,  and 
Oberon  and  Titania  speak  a  sort  of  epilogue.  In  1716, 
it  was  altered  and  played  under  the  title  of  "  A  Comic 
Masque  of  Pyramus  and  Thisbe,"  by  Richard  Leveridge, 
who  says,  "  I  have  made  bold  to  dress  out  the  original 
in  recitative  and  airs  after  the  present  Italian  mode." 


*Pepys  in  his  Diary  thus  expresses  his  opinion  of  this  truly  poetic  play:  "To  the 
King's  Theatre,  where  we  saw  '  Midsummer's  Night's  Dream,'  which  I  had  never  seen 
before,  nor  shall  ever  again,  for  it  is  the  most  insipid  ridiculous  play  that  ever  I  saw  in 
my  life."— Vol.  I.,  pp.  314-15, 


19 

In  this  year,  a  mock  opera,  Pyramus  and  Thisbe,  the 
words  taken  from  Shakspere,  was  produced  at  Covent 
Garden  Theatre,  the  music  by  J.  F.  Larnpe.  Another 
edition  of  this  version  was  published  in  1745.  In  1755, 
this  comedy  was  converted  into  an  opera  by  David 
Garrick,  and  published  under  the  title  of  "  The  Fairies;" 
the  songs  being  derived  from  Shakspere,  Milton,  Waller, 
Dryden,  Lansdowne,  Hammond  and  others.  In  1755,  a 
second  edition  of  this  version  was  published,  and  a  third 
in  1756.  In  1763,  it  was  again  altered  by  Garrick,  and 
produced  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre  on  November  i4th, 
under  the  title  of  "  A  Fairy  Tale."  This  alteration  was 
not  a  success,  for  it  was  only  played  one  night.  Among 
the  omissions  made  by  the  adapter,  nearly  the  whole  of 
the  mock  play  was  cut  out,  and  many  other  equally 
absurd  alterations  were  indulged  in.  However  great 
Garrick  may  have  been  as  a  mime,  he  most  certainly 
was  not  possessed  of  the  necessary  poetic  power  to 
improve  the  works  of  the  master  he  so  frequently  sought 
to  do.  It  is  said  that  Colman  assisted  Garrick  in  this 
adaptation,  but  such  statement  is  not  correct,  he  only 
superintended  the  rehearsals  at  Garrick's  express  desire. 
In  1771,  it  was  re-printed  under  the  title  of  "  The  Fairy 
Queen,"  a  masque.  Under  the  title  of  "  Pyramus  and 
Thisbe,"  a  pantomime  was  played  at  Birmingham,  in 
1798.  In  1816,  it  was  altered  and  added  to  by  F. 
Reynolds,  and  again  altered  by  J.  R.  Planche  in  1840. 

LOVE'S  LABOUR  LOST,  13  Editions.  In  1762,  "The 
Students  "  was  adapted  for  the  stage  from  this  comedy. 
Like  most  of  those  who  sought  to  adapt  Shakspere,  the 
adapter  has  left  out  too  much  of  the  original  text  and 
inserted  too  much  of  his  own.  In  this  alteration  the 
incidents  are  changed  as  well  as  the  language,  for  Biron 


20 

is  made  to  put  on  Costard's  coat — in  this  disguise  he 
speaks  part  of  what  belongs  to  Costard,  and  is  mistaken 
for  him  by  several  of  the  characters.  The  curate  and 
schoolmaster  are  omitted,  but  one  of  the  pedantic 
speeches  belonging  to  the  latter  character  is  absurdly 
given  to  a  player.  This  alteration  was  never  acted. 

THE  MERCHANT  OF  VENICE,  50  Editions.  In  1701, 
this  Comedy  was  altered  by  George  Granville,  Lord 
Lansdowne,  and  played  under  the  title  of  "  The  Jew  of 
Venice,"  at  the  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  Theatre.  In  the 
second  act  of  this  alteration,  the  characters  of  Lancelot 
Gobbo  and  old  Gobbo  are  entirely  omitted,  and  in  the 
third  act  the  part  of  Tubal  is  struck  out.  In  act  2,  the 
masque  of  Peleus  and  Thetis  is  introduced,  and  during 
the  performance  of  the  masque  Shylock  sups  at  a 
separate  table  and  drinks  a  toast  to  his  lady-love, 
Money.  The  other  additions  made  by  Granville  are 
most  contemptible,  the  meaning  of  Shakspere  being 
entirely  misconstrued  and  misunderstood.  The  purpose 
of  the  author  of  this  alteration  seems  to  have  been  to 
exalt  the  character  of  Bassanio  and  to  convert  Shylock 
into  a  comic,  instead  of  a  tragic,  character.  Some  of 
the  lines  he  has  inserted,  and  which  are  spoken  by  the 
Jew,  are  in  a  comic  vein  ;  and  in  this  version,  the  part 
of  Shylock  was  personated  by  Doggett,  the  comedian. 
With  becoming  modesty,  the  ghost  of  Shakspere,  in  the 
prologue,  is  made  to  say  : — 

"  The  first  rude  sketches  Shakspere' s  pencil  drew, 
But  all  the  shining  master-strokes  are  new. 
This  play,  ye  critics,  shall  your  fury  stand, 
Adorn'd  and  rescued  by  a  faultless  hand  ; 
These  scenes  in  their  rough  native  dress  were  mine, 
But  now,  imfirov'd,  with  noble  lustre  shine." 

Four  editions  of  this  version  were  published  :    one  in 


21 

1701,  one  in  1711,  one  in  1713,  and  one  in  1732.  In 
1773  another  version  of  this  comedy  was  published,  with 
alterations  and  insertions  for  acting ;  a  second  edition 
being  published  in  1777.  In  1802,  Dr.  Valpy  published 
his  alteration,  which  was  represented  at  Reading  in  the 
same  year.  In  seeking  to  justify  his  course  of  action, 
the  learned  doctor  appeals  to  the  labour  of  those  who 
had  preceded  him  in  the  work  of  alteration  and 
improvement — Dryden,  Tate,  Gibber  and  Garrick.  Their 
efforts  he  held  had  been  highly  successful,  inasmuch  as 
their  adaptations  and  alterations  were  applauded  by  the 
audiences  who  witnessed  the  representations,  and  he, 
therefore,  deduces  his  right  to  follow  their  example, 
forgetting  that  the  principle  of  seeking  to  improve 
Shakspere  had  always  been  condemned  by  those  critics 
who  understood  the  grandeur,  scope  and  aim  of  the 
Shaksperean  drama.  In  1849,  was  published  at  Oxford, 
"The  Merchant  of  Venice,  Travestie,"  a  burlesque  in 
one  act,  by  the  author  of  "Macbeth,  Travestie."  In 
1862,  the  Members  of  the  Swanwick  Shakspere  circle 
published  their  version,  under  the  title  of  "The  most 
excellent  Historie  of  the  Merchant  of  Venice,"  abbre- 
viated and  adapted  for  social  reading.  In  1876,  an 
expurgated  edition  of  this  play  was  published.  It  was 
adapted  for  reading  aloud  and  was  edited  by  Mr.  H. 
Cundell. 

As  You  LIKE  IT,  25  Editions.  In  1723,  this  Comedy 
was  altered  by  C.  Johnson,  and  produced  at  Drury  Lane 
Theatre,  on  January  gth,  under  the  title  of  "  Love  in  a 
Forest."  This  is  a  most  wretched  alteration,  the 
character  of  the  comedy  is  much  changed,  and,  as  usual 
with  the  improvers  of  Shakspere,  the  alteration  is  for 
the  worse.  The  characters  of  Phcebe,  Sylvius,  the  old 


22 

shepherd  Corin,  William,  Audrey  and  the  incomparable 
Touchstone,  are  omitted.  The  wrestling  scene  is 
changed  into  a  passage  of  arms  between  various 
knights  ;  Orlando  is  accused  of  treason,  and  the 
speeches  of  the  scene  between  Bolingbroke  and  the 
Duke  of  Norfolk,  from  Richard  II.,  are  introduced.  The 
lines  of  Rosalind  are  added  to  by  the  speech  of  Viola, 
from  Twelfth  Night,  "  she  never  told  her  love "  being 
given  to  her.  A  part  of  Much  Ado  about  Nothing  is 
introduced  into  the  third  act,  for  Jacques  borrows  very 
freely  the  speeches  of  Benedick.  The  fifth  act  consists 
chiefly  of  a  burlesque  of  Pyramus  and  Thisbe,  and  the 
would-be  censor  of  mankind,  the  self-elected  moralist, 
Jacques,  is  made  to  marry  Celia,  instead  of  going  to  see 
the  Duke,  who  "  hath  put  on  a  religious  life."  In  1739, 
it  was  again  altered  by  a  member  of  Trinity  College, 
Cambridge,  and  was  published  under  the  title  of  "  The 
Modern  Receipt,  or  a  Cure  for  Love."  In  1809,  an 
additional  scene  to  this  play  was  written  by  Mr.  Mozer, 
and  printed  in  The  European  Magazine.  In  1810,  it 
was  altered  and  revised  by  J.  P.  Kemble.  In  1824,  this 
charming  comedy  was  converted  into  an  opera  by  the 
means  of  additional  songs,  glees  and  choruses,  and  was 
produced  at  Covent  Garden  Theatre  on  December  roth  : 
Rosalind,  Miss  M.  Tree  ;  Celia,  Miss  Hammersley.  In 
1825,  this  version  was  produced  at  the  Haymarket 
Theatre;  Madame  Vestris  appearing  as  Rosalind,  Vining 
as  Orlando,  and  Dowton  as  Touchstone. 

ALL'S  WELL  THAT  ENDS  WELL,  n  Editions.  In 
1785,  this  Comedy  was  altered  by  Mr.  Pilon  and  reduced 
to  three  acts.  It  was  produced  at  the  Haymarket 
Theatre  on  July  26th  and  repeated  on  the  28th.  This 
version,  however,  was  never  printed.  In  1793,  it  was 


adapted  by  J.  P.  Kemble,  and  again  revised  by  him  in 
1811;  a  second  edition  of  this  version  being  published 
in  1815. 

THE  TAMING  OFOTHE  SHREW,  31  Editions.  In  1698^ 
this  delightful  Comedy  was  altered  by  J.  Lacey,  and 
published  under  the  title  of  "  Sawney  the  Scot,  or  the 
Taming  of  a  Shrew."  A  second  edition  was  published 
in  1714.  The  names  of  the  characters  are  mostly 
changed  in  this  version  :  Grumio  is  converted  into  a 
Scotch  servingman,  the  induction  is  omitted,  the 
dialogue  is  reduced  to  prose,  and  the  fifth  act  is  in  a 
great  measure  new.  Margaret,  having  returned  to  her 
father's  house,  determines  to  have  another  struggle  for 
superiority — she  scolds  till  she  tires,  then  becomes  sullen, 
and  Petruchio  proceeds  to  bury  her  alive,  and  then  she 
submits  to  his  rule.  In  1716,  it  was  altered  into  a  farce 
by  Charles  Johnson,  for  the  Drury  Lane  Company,  and 
published  as  "  The  Cobbler  of  Preston."  In  the  same 
year  it  was  altered  by  Christopher  Bullock,  for  the 
company  at  the  New  Theatre  in  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields. 
This  version  was  also  published  as  "The  Cobbler  of 
Preston/'  a  second  edition  appearing  in  1755.  In  1735, 
the  comedy  was  converted  into  a  ballad  opera,  by 
J.  Worsdale,  and  published  under  the  title  of  "  A  Cure 
for  a  Scold/'  In  1756,  it  was  altered  by  David  Garrick, 
and  published  as  "  Katharine  and  Petruchio."  Of  this 
alteration,  the  best  that  can  be  said  for  it,  is,  that  it  is  a 
farce  of  the  broadest  character,  amounting  to  extrava- 
gance, in  which  the  language  of  Shakspere  is  sadly 
pruned  and  diverted  from  its  original  meaning.  In 
1828,  "  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew  "  was  converted  into 
an  opera,  by  Reynolds,  and  produced  at  Drury  Lane 
Theatre,  on  May  24th.  Despite  the  strength  of  the  cast, 


24 

this  version  was  not  successful,  for  it  was  only  acted 
four  times. 

THE  WINTER'S  TALE,  29  Editions.  Six  alterations 
of  this  play  have  been  published.  The  first  alteration 
was  by  Macnamara  Morgan,  under  the  title  of  "  Florizell 
and  Perdita,  or  the  Sheep-shearing;  "  of  this  alteration, 
two  editions  were  published :  one  in  1754  and  the  other 
in  1767.  This  version  only  contained  two  acts,  and  the 
large  additions  which  are  made  to  the  character  of 
Antolycus  are  wretchedly  inferior  to  the  language  of 
Shakspere.  This  version  was  produced  at  Covent 
Garden  Theatre  on  March  25th,  1754,  and  brought  out 
again  by  Barry  at  the  Dublin  Theatre  in  1755.  In  1756, 
the  second  alteration  was  effected  by  Charles  Marsh.  In 
1756,  the  third  alteration  was  effected  by  David  Garrick, 
under  the  title  of  "Florizell  and  Perdita,  a  dramatic 
pastoral,"  and  was  produced  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre,  on 
January  2ist.  Two  other  editions  of  this  alteration  were 
published — one  in  1 762  and  one  in  1 785.  Garrick  always 
professed  a  profound  love  and  admiration  for  Shakspere 
and  he  constantly  expressed  his  desire  to  preserve  every 
fragment  of  his  works.  This  intention  he  also  pro- 
claimed in  the  prologue  which  he  wrote  for  his  version 
of  The  Winter's  Tale  :— 

"  Lest,  then,  this  precious  liquor  run  to  waste, 
'Tis  now  confined  and  bottled  to  your  taste  ; 
'Tis  my  chief  wish,  my  joy,  my  only  plan, 
To  lose  no  drop  of  that  immortal  man." 

How  well  he  carried  out  his  intention  and  fulfilled  his 
desire,  is  evidenced  in  the  fact  that  the  first  three  acts 
of  Shakspere's  play  were  entirely  omitted  by  him.  It 
opens  with  a  room  at  the  court  of  Bohemia,  in  which 
enters  "  Camillo  and  a  Gentleman ;  "  Camillo  informs 


25 

the  latter  of  the  events,  supposed  to  have  occurred  before 
the  opening  of  the  play,  such  as  the  visit  of  Polixenes  to 
Leontes,  the  latter's  jealousy,  the  trial  and  imprison- 
ment of  Hermione,  the  birth  of  the  child  and  its  exposure, 
the  defiance  of  Leontes  and  his  subsequent  years  of 
remorse.  The  second  scene  is  the  "  Country  by  the 
Seaside."  The  Shepherd  enters  and  speaks  Shakspere's 
words, — and  then  enters  his  son,  who  describes  a  ship- 
wreck he  has  witnessed, — then  enters  Leontes  and 
Cleomines  who  have  been  wrecked.  The  chief  part  of 
the  comic  interest  has  been  retained,  but  the  remainder 
of  the  play  is  a  mere  mosaic,  the  last  two  acts  of 
Shakspere's  text  being  worked  in  with  a  good  deal  of 
Garrick's  rubbish.  The  quality  of  the  language  and  the 
nature  of  the  alterations  made  by  Garrick  are  best 
shown  by  the  following  quotation  from  the  dialogue, 
which  demonstrates  most  effectively,  how  weak  and 
puerile  are  Garrick's  innovations  : — 

Cleom.   Bear  up,  my  liege  ;  again  welcome  on  shore. 
Leon.   Flatter  me  not — in  death  distinctions  cease. 

Am  I  on  shore  ;  walk  I  on  land,  from  land, 

Or  ride  I  yet  upon  the  billow's  backs  ? 

Methinks  I  feel  the  motion.     Who  art  thou  ? 
Cleom.   Know  you  me  not  ? — your  friend  Cleomenes. 
Leon.   Where  are  my  other  friends  ?  What !  perished  all  ? 
Cleom.   Not  a  soul  saved  !  ourselves,  are  all  the  crew — 

Pilot,  shipmaster,  boatswain,  sailors  all. 
Leon.    Laud  we  the  gods  ?  Yet  wherefore  perished  they, 

Innocent  souls,  and  I,  will  all  my  guilt 

Live  yet  to  load  the  earth.     Oh,  righteous  gods, 

Your  ways  are  past  the  line  of  man  to  fathom. 
Cleom.    Waste  not  your  small  remaining  strength  of  body 

In  warring  with  your  mind.     This  desert  waste 

Has  some  inhabitants.     Here's  help  at  hand. 

Good  day,  old  man. 
Old  Shep.    Never  said  in  worse  time — a  better  to  both 

Your  worships.     Command  us,  sir. 
Clown.   You  have  been  sweetly  soaked  ;  give  the 

Gods  thanks  that  you  are  alive  to  feel  it 


26 

Leon.    We  are  most  thankful,  sir. 

Cleom.   What  deserts  are  these  same  ? 

Old  Shep.   The  deserts  of  Bohemia. 

Leon.    Sayest  thou  Bohemia  ?  Ye  gods,  Bohemia  ! 
In  every  act  your  judgments  are  sent  forth 
Against  Leontes  ?  Here  to  be  wrecked  and  saved 
Upon  this  coast !  All  the  wrongs  I  have  done 
Stir  now  afresh  within  me.     Did  I  not 
Upon  this  coast  expose  my  harmless  infant — 
Bid  Polixenes  (falsely  deemed  the  father) 
To  take  this  child.     O  hell-born  jealousy, 
All  but  myself  most  innocent — and  now 
Upon  this  coast !  Pardon  Hermione.* 

In  1760,  the  fourth  alteration  was  effected  by  turning 
the  comedy  into  an  opera,  and  adding  several  new 
songs  for  Florizell  and  Perdita  to  suit  the  prevailing 
taste  of  the  age.  C.  Colman  effected  the  fifth  alteration, 
his  work  being  entitled  "The  Sheep-shearing,"  and 
was  published  in  1777.  This  alteration  is  not  really 
based  upon  Shakspere's  Winter's  Tale,  but  chiefly  upon 
Garrick's  miserable  alteration  of  that  play.  In  1785, 
this  play  was  altered  and  adapted  to  the  stage  by  J.  P. 
Kemble. 

THE  COMEDY  OF  ERRORS,  16  Editions.  In  1716, 
an  alteration  of  this  Comedy  was  produced  at  the 
theatre,  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  under  the  title  of  "  Every- 
body's Mistakes."  This  production  was  never  printed. 
In  1779,  this  comedy  was  altered  and  adapted  by 
Thomas  Hull ;  the  second  edition  of  this  alteration  being 


*  That  Garrick's  detestable  alterations  met  with  some  rebuke  at  the  time  they  were 
produced,  is  shown  in  a  dissertation  delivered  at  the  Haymarket  Theatre  in  1756  : — "  Were 
Shakspere's  ghost  to  rise,"  says  Gibber,  "  would  he  not  frown  indignation  on  this  pilfering 
pedlar  in  poetry,  who  thus  shamefully  mangles,  mutilates  and  emasculates  his  plays.  The 
Midsummer's  Night's  Dream  has  been  minced  and  fricaseed  into  a  thing  called  the  Fairies — 
the  Winter's  Tale  mammoxed  into  a  droll — and  the  Tempest  castrated  into  an  opera,  yet 
this  sly  prince  would  insinuate  all  this  ill-usage  of  the  bard  is  owing,  forsooth,  to  his  love 
of  him — much  such  a  mock  proof  of  his  tender  regard  as  the  cobbler's  drubbing  his  wife. 
No  wonder  Shakspere's  name  is  insulted  by  foreigners,  while  he  is  tamely  suffered  to  be 
thus  maltreated  at  home." 


27 

published  in  1793.  This  comedy  was  also  altered  and 
reduced  by  W.  Woods  to  three  acts.  This  alteration, 
without  improvement,  was  called  "The  Twins/'  and 
three  editions  of  the  same  were  published,— one  in  1780, 
one  in  1786,  and  the  third  possesses  no  date.  In  1780, 
an  alteration  by  John  Philip  Kemble  was  produced  at 
York,  under  the  title  of  "Its  Impossible/'  In  this 
version  Kemble  converted  the  two  Dromios  into  two 
black  servants,  contriving  not  only  to  puzzle  the 
audience  but  also  the  actors.  Other  foolish  alterations 
were  made  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  comedy.  This 
version  was  never  printed.  In  1811,  Hull's  adaptation 
underwent  a  revision  by  J.  P.  Kemble,  and  a  second 
edition  was  published  in  1815.  In  1820,  this  comedy 
was  turned  into  an  opera  by  Reynolds,  the  dramatist, 
who  added  several  scenes,  none  of  which  were  any 
improvement.  To  the  printed  copy  of  this  literary 
murder  Reynolds  did  not  put  his  name,  though  in  his 
life  he  acknowledges  the  fact. 


HISTORIES. 


KING  JOHN,  37  Editions.  This  history  was  first 
produced  in  1596,  and  was  first  published  in  1623.  Two 
editions  of  a  play  "  The  Troublesome  Raigne  of  John, 
King  of  England,"  were  published  in  1611  and  1622, 
bearing  the  initials  of  "  W.  S.,"  but  this  play  was  not 
written  by  Shakspere.  In  1744,  Shakspere's  play 
was  altered  by  Colley  Gibber  and  produced  under  the 
title  of  "  Papal  Tyranny  in  the  Reign  of  King  John." 
This  alteration  by  Gibber  is  a  very  bad  one,  for  he  has 
completely  spoilt  the  characters  of  Falconbridge  and 
Constance,  and  so  changed  the  language  that  the  intent 
and  meaning  of  the  play  are  entirely  destroyed.  Gibber 
modestly  says  in  his  dedication  to  Philip,  Earl  of 
Chesterfield,  "  I  have  endeavoured  to  make  it  more  like 
a  play  than  what  I  found  it  in  Shakespear,  and  if  your 
Lordship  should  find  it  so,  my  ambition  has  no  further 
views."  In  1750,  this  history  underwent  another  altera- 
tion, a  new  set  of  choruses  were  added  after  the  manner 
of  the  ancients,  to  be  sung  at  the  end  of  each  act.  In 
1800,  it  was  altered  by  Dr.  Valpy,  and  a  second  edition 
of  his  alteration  was  published  in  1803,  and  on  May  2oth 
of  the  same  year,  this  version  was  produced  at  Covent 
Garden  Theatre,  but  it  did  prove  successful.  It  was 
originally  done  to  be  acted  by  the  boys  of  his  own  school. 
This  alteration  does  not  redound  to  the  credit  of  the 
learned  doctor  ;  for  he  omits  the  first  act  of  Shakspere, 


29 

introduces  some  lines  from  Papal  Tyranny,  spoils  the 
character  of  Falconbridge,  and  commits  other  follies 
unbecoming  a  Shaksperean  editor,  who  professes  to 
hold  a  high  admiration  of  the  genius  of  the  poet,  com- 
bined with  a  strong  love  of  his  productions  ;  his  alteration 
is  but  a  mosaic  that  clearly  displays  a  want  of  compre- 
hension, a  lack  of  understanding  the  high  qualities,  the 
patriotism  and  truthfulness  of  characterisation  which 
Shakspere  evinces  in  this  history.  In  1800,  it  was  also 
altered  and  revised  by  J.  P.  Kemble ;  two  other  editions 
of  his  alteration  being  published  :  one  in  1 804,  and  one 
in  1814.  In  1837,  a  burlesque  under  the  title  of  "King 
John  with  the  benefit  of  the  Act,"  was  written  by  Gilbert 
A'Becket. 

RICHARD  II.,  30  Editions.  In  1681,  Nahum  Tate 
altered  this  play,  and  produced  it  under  the  title  of 
"  The  Sicilian  Usurper,"  a  second  edition  of  which  was 
published  in  1691.  This  alteration  of  Tate's  only  serves 
to  disfigure  the  text  of  Shakspere,  and  to  display  the 
weakness  of  Tate,  whose  additions  to  the  text  are  of  the 
most  insipid  character.  Tate  has  introduced  more  low 
comedy  into  his  version,  and  he  also  changes  the 
character  of  the  Duke  of  York,  giving  him  a  comic  vein, 
making  him  a  mountain  of  flesh,  so  that,  to  use  his  own 
words,  "  he  can  scarce  carry  his  own  fat."  In  this 
alteration,  Tate's  modesty  is  of  so  pure  a  nature,  that  he 
fails  not  to  boast  that  he  has  heightened  the  character 
and  added  to  the  strength  of  the  frivolous  Richard, 
whose  harsh  measures  he  seeks  to  palliate.  The  sym- 
pathy which  is  felt  for  Shakspere' s  Richard — which  is 
also  the  Richard  of  English  history — is  lost  to  a  very 
great  extent  in  Tate's  arrangement,  who,  in  his  anxiety 
to  display  his  intense  respect  for  royalty,  has  destroyed 


the  human  interest  evoked  by  the  misfortunes  of  the 
unfortunate  monarch,  who — 

"  every  day  under  his  household  roof 
Did  keep  ten  thousand  men." 

Although  Tate  had  changed  the  names  of  his  characters, 
altered  the  language  and  also  changed  the  time  and 
locality  of  the  events,  the  play  was  suppressed  after  two 
representations,  much  to  his  disappointment.  In  1720,  it 
was  altered  by  Theobald.  This  alteration  is  a  very  bad 
one.  The  first  and  second  acts  of  the  original  play  are 
altogether  omitted,while  many  absurdities  are  introduced. 
Aumerle  is  made  to  be  in  love  with  Lady  Percy,  and 
this  attachment  leads  to  the  discovery  of  the  conspiracy 
against  Bolingbroke ;  for  Aumerle,  in  pulling  out  his 
handkerchief,  also  pulls  out  a  parchment  containing  the 
object  and  names  of  the  conspirators ;  this  is  found  by 
Northumberland,  who  gives  it  to  Bolingbroke.  In  the 
termination  of  this  version,  Theobald  has  made  some 
change.  Richard  is  struck  down  by  Exton,  but  he  does 
not  die  until  the  entrance  of  Northumberland  and 
Bolingbroke,  the  latter  of  whom  asks— 

Bol.        "  What  noise  of  tumult  did  invade  our  ears  ? 
Ha  1  Richard  !  how  came  this  ? 

King.     Question  it  not ; 

Content,  that  all  thy  fears  with  me  lie  buried  : 
Unrivaird  wear  the  crown.     O  Isabella."  {dies. 

Screams  are  heard,  then  Ross  enters,  stating  that  Lady 
Percy,  hearing  of  the  death  of  Aumerle,  had  drawn 
from  her  side  a  secret  dagger  and  plunged  it  in  her 
breast ;  then  York  enters,  and  finding  Richard  dead,  he 
commits  suicide,  and  Bolingbroke  finishes  the  piece. 
Even  in  the  parts  which  are  retained,  Theobald  has 
sought  to  improve  the  poet's  text  by  additions  of  his 
own,  but,  like  all  other  improvers  of  Shakspere,  he  has 


31 

only  proved  his  own  weakness  and  folly.  In  1772,  it 
was  altered  and  the  style  imitated  by  Goodhall ;  and  in 
1815,  it  was  published  with  alterations  and  additions, 
by  R.  Wroughton.  This  version  is  a  very  poor  one, 
it  is  guilty  of  much  omission  and  the  additions  are  not 
in  the  best  taste.  The  Queen  is  introduced  in  the  last 
scene  and  speaks  some  lines  from  the  tragedy  of  Lear. 
On  March  14,  1857,  Richard  II.  was  produced  at  the 
Princess  Theatre,  by  Mr.  Charles  Kean.  There  are 
scarcely  any  changes  of  the  text  in  this  version,  though 
there  are  many  omissions.  Several  scenes  are  struck 
out,  and  this  was  rendered  necessary  by  the  manner 
in  which  the  play  was  put  upon  the  stage.  Mr.  Kean 
evidently  intended  to  appeal  to  the  eyes  as  well  as  the 
ears  of  his  audiences,  the  play  being  most  elaborately 
mounted,  and  the  spectacular  part  nearly  overwhelming 
the  action  and  language  of  the  poet.  A  very  extensive 
and  elaborate  episode,  an  interpolation  of  Mr.  Kean's, 
was  produced,  representing  a  royal  visit  to  the  City  in 
the  1 4th  century.  This  was  very  cleverly  got  up,  and 
the  effect  was  marvellous.  The  incidents  were  numer- 
ous, and  the  costumes  historically  correct ;  so  much  so 
that  not  only  was  the  past  most  faithfully  recalled,  but 
also  the  sensations  belonging  to  it.  Of  this  version 
several  editions  were  published. 

HENRY  IV.,  Part  i.,  29  Editions.  In  1700,  it  was 
altered  and  played  by  Thomas  Betterton  at  the  Lincoln's 
Inn  Fields  Theatre,  as  "  Henry  the  Fourth  with  the 
Humours  of  Sir  John  Falstaff,"  and  was  first  published 
in  the  same  year.  Most  of  the  alterations  consist  of 
transpositions  and  omissions,  among  the  latter,  the 
character  of  Lady  Mortimer,  is  struck  out.  In  1710,  it 
was  altered  again  by  the  Hon.  Mr.  Greville ;  a  second 


32 

edition  of  whose  work  was  published  in  1721.  On  April 
30th,  1762,  this  history  was  played  at  Drury  Lane 
Theatre,  the  part  of  Hotspur  being  omitted  from  the 
representation.  In  1810,  it  was  revised  by  J.  P.  Kemble, 
of  whose  revision  two  other  editions  were  published,  one 
in  1811  and  one  in  1815. 

HENRY  IV.,  Part  n.,  27  Editions.  In  1700,  this 
History  was  revised  and  added  to  by  Thomas  Betterton, 
who  produced  his  alteration  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre, 
under  the  title  of  "The  Sequel  to  Henry  IV.,  with  the 
Humours  of  Sir  John  FalstafF  and  Justice  Shallow."  In 
this  version  Betterton  has  omitted  much  of  Shakspere's 
language,  committed  many  alterations  and  perpetrated 
several  transpositions  of  scenes.  The  characters  of 
Lady  Percy,  the  Earl  of  Northumberland,  Lady  North- 
umberland and- others  are  entirely  left  out.  In  act  i, 
the  first  scene  is  omitted ;  so  also  is  the  first  scene  in  act 
2.  In  act  3,  scenes  i,  2  and  3  of  act  4  are  blended 
together,  the  speeches  being  much  contracted,  and  they 
form  a  conclusion  to  Betterton's  third  act.  Act  4,  com- 
mences with  part  of  the  first  scene  of  act  3,  containing 
the  king's  soliloquy  on  sleep  and  then  changes  to  scenes 
4  and  5  of  act  4,  which  are  interwoven  with  each  other, 
though  shorn  of  their  fair  proportions.  Then  follows 
scene  3  from  act  5,  and  this  act  terminates  with  scene  2 
of  act  5.  Act  5,  opens  with  scene  5  of  the  original  play, 
and  the  remainder  of  the  act  is  composed  of  scenes  i 
and  2  from  act  i  of  Henry  V.,  and  of  scene  2  of  act  2 
from  the  same  play.  Two  editions  of  this  alteration 
were  published, — one  in  1710  and  the  other  in  1719.  In 
1760,  William  Kenrick  produced  a  sequel  to  this  history, 
under  the  title  of  "  FalstafF s  Wedding,  a  Comedy, 
written  in  imitation  of  Shakspere,"  and  it  is  the  only 


33 

x  V 

instance  in  our  literature  of  any  attempt  to  continue  a 
Shaksperean  play,  or  part  of  one.  The  non-success  of 
preceding  imitators  of  Shakspere  did  not  act  as  a 
deterrent  to  the  learned  Kenrick,  who,  wrapt  up  within 
himself,  fondly  imagined  that  he  would  succeed  where 
others  had  failed;  forgetting  that  the  characterisation, 
force  and  sweetness  of  language  which  marks  the  works 
of  Shakspere,  were  wholly  wanting  in  his  own  pro- 
duction, and,  therefore,  the  elements  of  success  were 
wanting  in  his  play  In  1761,  a  new  version  of  this 
history  was  produced  on  December  roth,  at  Covent 
Garden  Theatre,  and  was  played  for  twenty-two  nights. 
From  this  version  the  characters  of  Silence  and  Justice 
Shallow  were  omitted.  In  1766,  Kenrick's  sequel  was 
played  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre,  and  it  met  with  no 
success.  Two  other  editions  of  this  comedy  were 
published, — one  in  1766  and  one  in  1773.  In  1801,  it  was 
altered  by  Dr.  Valpy,  and  in  1803,  it  was  altered  and 
revised  by  J.  P.  Kemble ;  two  other  editions  being 
published, — one  in  1814  and  one  in  1815.  In  1821,  this 
history  was  revived  at  Covent  Garden  Theatre  on  June 
25th,  and  it  ran  twenty-seven  nights.  Four  additional 
scenes  were  introduced,  so  that  the  coronation  pageant 
could  be  displayed.  Scene  i,  was  the  platform  leading 
to  the  Abbey;  scene  2,  Westminster  Abbey;  scene  3, 
the  cloisters  of  the  Abbey  and  the  return  from  West- 
minster Hall ;  scene  4,  the  grand  banquet  in  West- 
minster Hall,  with  the  champion.  Thus  was  sense 
and  poetry  sacrificed  to  show  and  sound,  and  character 
made  to  yield  to  spectacular  display.  In  1829,  was 
published  "The  Life  and  Humours  of  Falstaff;  a 
Comedy  formed  out  of  the  two  parts  of  Shakspere's 
Henry  the  Fourth,  and  a  few  scenes  of  Henry  V."  In 
1869,  Mark  Lemon  adapted  his  entertainment,  "The 


34 

Story  of  Falstaff,"  from  parts  i  and  2  of  King  Henry  IV. 
In  this  adaption,  the  story  of  the  fat  knight  is  most 
consistently  told,  for  it  comprises  "  Falstaff,  his  fun  and 
folly,  his  amours,  his  breaches  of  the  law,  his  robberies, 
his  soldiering,  his  lies,  his  guzzling,  and  finally  his 
downfall,  his  humiliation,  his  punishment."  The  text  of 
Shakspere  is  but  little  tampered  with,  except  by  excision 
in  this  adaptation,  which  was  published  in  1871. 

HENRY  VTH.,  26  Editions.  In  1664,  Lord  Orrery's 
Henry  V.  was  produced  at  the  theatre,  Lincoln's  Inri 
Fields,  on  August  i3th,  .and  first  published  in  1668. 
This  play  bears  no  resemblance  to  Shakspere's,  except 
in  the  historical  part  thereof.  There  is  one  scene  in 
which  his  lordship  seems  to  have  the  elder  dramatist  in 
mind,  and  that  is  the  scene  in  which  the  Salic  Law  is 
debated  by  the  French  and  English  lords.  In  1720,  a 
farce  called  "The  Half-pay  Officers/'  was  produced  at 
Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  Theatre.  It  is  chiefly  based  upon 
the  comic  parts  of  this  history,  the  author  acknowledging 
his  obligations  to  Shakspere  and  Davenant.  In  1723,  it 
was  altered  by  Aaron  Hill,  and  produced  at  Drury  Lane 
Theatre  on  December  5th,  under  the  title  of  "  Henry  V., 
or  the  Conquest  of  France  by  the  English,"  with  sets  of 
scenes  new  to  the  play.  In  this  alteration  the  whole  of 
the  comic  parts  are  omitted — no  Pistol,  Bardolph,  Flu- 
ellen  appear ;  and  the  charming  scene  between  the  king 
and  the  soldiers  is  also  struck  out.  The  arrangements  of 
the  acts  are  altogether  different,  act  i  commencing  with 
the  first  scene  of  the  third  act  of  Shakspere's  play,  then 
it  goes  back  to  the  second  scene  of  act  i,  and  this  going 
backwards  and  forwards  continues  throughout.  The 
speeches  are  also  transposed  from  one  character  to 
another,  and  to  add  to  its  strength,  an  entirely  new 


35 

character  is  introduced,  Harriet,  the  niece  of  Lord 
Scoop,  whom  the  king  is  said  to  have  seduced  and 
deserted.  This  play  was  only  acted  six  times.  A 
second  edition  of  this  alteration  was  published  in  1760. 
In  1789,  it  was  altered  by  curtailment  by  J.  P.  Kemble, 
who  in  1 80 1  revised  his  previous  alteration.  Two  other 
editions  of  this  second  revision  were  published, — one  in 
1806  and  one  in  1815. 

HENRY  VI.,  Part  I.,  7  Editions.  In  1681,  this 
history  was  altered  and  improved  (?)  by  John  Crowne, 
and  was  acted  at  the  Dorset  Garden  Theatre.  Though 
published  under  the  title  of  "  Henry  VI.,  part  i.,  with 
the  Murder  of  Humphrey,  Duke  of  Gloucester/'  it  is 
mainly  composed  of  the  first  three  acts  of  Shakspere's 
Henry  VI.,  part  2,  and  it  closes  with  the  death  of  the 
Duke  of  Suffolk,  and  the  breaking  out  of  the  rebellion 
of  Jack  Cade.  The  dying  scene  of  Cardinal  Beaufort  is 
used  and  entirely  spoilt  by  the  weak  inane  additions  of 
Crowne,  who  introduces  the  ghost  of  Gloucester  to 
Beaufort,  causing  him  to  go  off  in  a  swoon.  The  play 
thus  altered,  bad  as  it  is,  is  a  much  better  one  than 
most  of  those  written  at  the  time,  owing  to  Crowne 
having  left  in  more  than  a  usual  quantity  of  the  original 
language  in  his  version. 

HENRY  VI.,  Part  n.,  5  Editions.  In  1680,  this 
history  was  altered  by  John  Crowne,  and  in  1681,  it  was 
produced  at  the  Dorset  Garden  Theatre,  under  the  title 
of  "  Henry  VI.,  part  2,  or  the  Miserie  of  the  Civil  War." 
This  alteration  is  a  good  deal  worse  than  the  former 
one,  for  the  author  does  not  forget  to  start  with  a  false- 
hood, for  he  says  in  his  prologue,  that — 

"  The  divine  Shakspere  did  not  lay  one  stone  ;  " 


36 

and  yet  his  production  is  but  a  combination  of  Shaks- 
pere's  Henry  VI.,  parts  2  and  3,  with  some  additions 
and  many  alterations.  It  opens  with  the  scenes  relative 
to  Jack  Cade,  who  is  killed  by  Clifford  instead  of  Iden. 
The  second  act  begins  with  the  battle  of  St.  Albans,  and 
closes  with  the  agreement  between  King  Henry  and 
York.  The  third  act  lies  at  Sandal  Castle,  and  is  very 
badly  altered.  In  the  fourth  act  Clifford  dies — Lady 
Grey  is  married  to  King  Edward,  who  is  afterwards 
taken  prisoner  by  Warwick.  In  the  fifth  act  we  have 
the  battle  of  Barnet ;  the  death  of  Warwick ;  Margaret 
and  her  son  prisoners  ;  the  ghost  of  Richard  II.  and  a 
good  spirit  appears  to  King  Henry,  who  is  killed  by 
Richard  Plantaganet ;  and  King  Edward  concludes  the 
play.  Crowne  makes  his  Clifford  fond  of  emphatic 
expressions*  for  he  puts  into  his  mouth  "  Damn  your 
unlucky  planets  ;  "  "  Oh  !  damn  all  this — come,  let's  to 
battle ;  "  and,  when  dying,  he  makes  Clifford  recover 
enough  to  say,  "Damnation  on  you  all."  In  1723, 
Ambrose  Phillips  produced  a  play  called  "  Humphrey, 
Duke  of  Gloucester,"  which  was  acted  at  Drury  Lane 
Theatre  on  February  i5th.  This  play  is  founded  on 
Shakspere's  Henry  VI.,  and  though  Phillips  has  not 
borrowed  a  considerable  number  of  lines  froiji  the  poet's 
play,  he  has  made  some  singular  alterations.  To  the 
Duchess  of  Gloucester  he  has  absurdly  given  several 
speeches  from  Henry  VI.  Many  of  the  lines  of  the 
play  are  but  poor  imitations,  deficient  in  strength, 
warmth  and  sweetness,  and  distinguished  by  their  cold- 
ness and  frigidity.  In  the  death  scene  of  Cardinal 
Beaufort,  Phillips  has  fallen  into  the  same  error  that 
befell  the  adaptor  Crowne,  not  only  has  he  weakened 
it,  but  he  has  in  reality  completely  spoilt  it. 


37 

HENRY  VL,  Part  in.,  10  Editions.  In  1720,  Theo- 
philus  Gibber  altered  this  history,  but  the  alteration  was 
not  published  till  1723,  a  scond  edition  being  published 
in  1724.  It  was  called  "  An  Historical  Tragedy  of 
the  Civil  Wars  in  the  reign  of  King  Henry  VI., 
being  a  Sequel  to  the  Tragedy  of  Humphrey,  Duke  of 
Gloucester."  This  alteration  is  not  to  the  advantage 
of  the  play,  for  it  is  based  upon  that  of  Crowne's,  and 
the  chief  advantage  it  possesses  over  that  alteration,  is 
that  it  retains  more  of  the  original  text.  Many  of  the 
incidents  are  changed,  and  the  additions  made  by 
Gibber,  are  distinguishable  by  their  weakness  and  not 
by  their  strength.  In  1795,  Dr.  Valpy  published  his 
historic  tragedy  of  "  The  Roses  ;  or  King  Henry  VI." 
This  play  is  principally  compiled  from  Shakspere's 
history,  and  a  second  edition  was  published  in  1810.  In 
1817,  Edmund  Kean  produced  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre, 
"Richard,  Duke  of  York,"  altered  from  Shakspere's 
Henry  VI.  In  1830  a  second  edition  of  this  alteration 
was  published. 

RICHARD  III.,*  50  Editions.  This  history  was 
written  by  Shakspere,  not  in  his  earliest  days,  but  in 
the  early  part  of  his  manhood  in  the  fulness  of  his 
strength,  for  its  versification  is  one  grand  sonorous 
march,  while  its  characterisation  is  remarkable  for  its 
strength,  depth  and  subtlety.  Richard  was  the  grand 
central  figure  of  the  Wars  of  the  Two  Roses  ;  for  in  him 

*  The  life  and  reign  of  Richard  HI.  was  a  very  popular  subject  with  English  dramatists. 
In  1583,  Dr.  Legge's  "Richardus  Tertius,"  was  acted  at  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  and 
in  1594  "  The  True  Tragedie  of  Richard,"  was  produced.  A  "Richard  Crookback,"  by  Ben 
Jonson  and  another  dramatist  was  produced  in  1602.  "  The  English  Princess,  or  the 
Death  of  Richard  HI.,"  by  Caryl,  was  propuced  at  the  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  Theatre,  on 
March  7th,  1667.  This  play  is  not  an  adaptation  of  Shakspere,  nor  does  the  author  borrow 
anything  from  Shakspere.  Caryl's  play  is  materially  wanting  in  the  elements  of  great- 
ness and  truly  exhibits  its  own  weakness  when  compared  with  Shakspere.  Gibber  in  his 
version  of  Richard  in.,  does  not  fail  to  borrow  from  Caryl. 


culminated  all  the  craft,  hypocrisy,  audacity  and 
intellectuality  of  the  Yorkist  party,  and  his  death  on 
Bosworth  Field  was  the  close  of  a  great  struggle  ;  a 
struggle,  not  of  an  ordinary  character,  in  which  society 
had  been  intensely  interested,  and  whose  interest 
in  that  remarkable  phase  of  our  national  affairs,  had  not 
ceased,  even  at  the  period  when  the  play  was  written. 
Shakspere,  who  is  always  true  to  history,  and  to 
the  poetic  solution  and  development  of  the  law  of 
humanity,  fails  not  to  draw  the  character  of  Richard  as 
it  should  be  drawn,  and,  therefore,  the  tinkering  of 
petty  adapters  serves  not  only  to  mar,  but  to  destroy 
the  beauty,  sublimity  and  completeness  of  the  history  as 
conceived  and  rendered  by  Shakspere.  This  work 
written  in  the  pride  of  his  intellectual  powers  has  under- 
gone most  fearful  mutilation  by  several  adapters,  fore- 
most among  whom  may  be  mentioned  Colley  Gibber,* 
whose  version,  produced  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre  in  1 700, 
still  keeps  the  stage.  In  the  Cibberian  version  there  is 
not  much  more  than  five  hundred  lines  of  the  original 
play  introduced,  whole  scenes  being  taken  from  the 
other  histories  of  Shakspere,  and  lines  and  speeches  clipt 
and  shorn  of  their  fair  proportions  in  accordance  with 
the  truer  taste  and  the  higher  and  fuller  knowledge  of 
the  dramatic  art,  which  this  despicable  adapter,  imagined 
he  possessed  over  the  incomparable  master.  Gibber's 
garbled  version  is  still  adopted  by  country  managers 

*  Gibber  chose  to  play  the  part  of  Richard  on  the  production  of  the  history,  and  his 
performance  was  thus  described  by  a  contemporary :— he  "  screamed  through  four  acts 
without  dignity  or  decency  :  the  audience  ill-pleased  with  the  farce,  accompanied  him  with 
a  smile  of  contempt ;.  but  in  the  fifth  act,  he  degenerated  all  at  once  into  Sir  Novelty ;  and 
when  in  the  heat  of  the  battle  of  Bosworth  Field,  the  king  is  dismounted,  our  comic- 
tragedian  came  on  the  stage,  really  breathless,  and  in  a  seeming  panick,  screaming  out 
this  line  thus — A  Harse,  a  Harse  ;  my  kingdom  for  a  Harse — this  highly  delighted  some  and 
disgusted  others  of  his  auditors  ;  and  when  he  was  killed  by  Richmond,  one  might  plainly 
perceive  that  the  good  people  were  not  better  pleased  that  so  execrable  a  tyrant  was 
destroyed,  than  that  so  execrable  an  actor  was  silent." — Quoted  in  Genest's  History  of  the 
Stage,  vol.  2,  p.  218. 


39 

and  starring  actors,  and  by  them  submitted  to  the 
dramatic  public  as  Shakspere's  Richard  III.  Not  less 
than  twenty-one  editions  of  this  bastard  version  have 
been  published.  In  1815,  an  adaptation  by  James 
Wrighten,  was  published.  In  1820,  a  Mr.  Bridgman 
tried  his  hand  at  altering  this  history  for  the  stage;  and 
in  1821,  Mr.  W.  Macready,  made  the  first  attempt  to 
introduced  the  play  somewhat  nearer  to  the  original  text 
than  had  hitherto  been  done  since  the  year  1700.  The 
production  of  this  version  proceeded  from  a  strong 
desire  on  the  part  of  the  great  actor,  to  restore  the 
original  character  and  language  of  Shakspere,  and  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  version  of  Colley  Gibber,  which 
the  bulk  of  the  play-going  public  had  applauded  as  the 
true  Shaksperean  drama.  None  of  the  extraneous 
matter  was  contained  in  this  version,  but  many  omis- 
sions had  to  be  made  to  adapt  it  to  representation.  It 
was,  however,  very  faulty  in  its  construction,  and  the  re- 
vival was  much  mismanaged.  It  was  played  at  Covent 
Garden  Theatre  on  March  i2th,  and  it  was  not  success- 
ful, although  Mr.  Macready  was  much  praised  in  Gloster 
and  Mr.  Egerton  was  much  applauded  as  Clarence.  On 
the  i  gth  of  the  same  month  it  was  again  played,  and 
then  it  was  consigned  to  the  tomb  of  the  Capulets,  for 
it  was  played  no  more.  On  February  26th,  1844,  a 
burlesque  of  this  history  was  produced  at  the  Strand 
Theatre.  It  was  in  one  act  and  written  by  Mr.  Charles 
Selby,  comedian.  In  March,  1845,  Richard  III.,  was 
produced  at  the  Sadler  Wells  Theatre,  by  Mr.  S.  Phelps. 
This  was  the  play  as  wrote  by  Shakspere,  and  not  the 
ordinary  compilation  of  Colley  Gibber  which  passes 
current  for  the  true  piece.  In  the  poet's  own  play  the 
character  of  Richard  is  essentially  different  to  the 
Richard  of  Gibber's  clap-trap  rifacimento,  for  in  the 


40 

latter  the  higher  qualities  of  character  are  sacrificed  to 
rapid  action,  The  Shaksperean  drama  moves  beneath 
a  weight  of  thought  and  circumstance  requiring  much 
care  and  attention,  and  this  phase  is  entirely  lost  in 
Gibber's  version,  for  he  inserts  the  murder  of  Henry 
VI.  in  the  Tower,  forgetting,  or  not  perceiving  that  the 
necessity  for  such  murder  had  passed  away  from  the 
brain  of  Gloster  at  the  opening  of  the  play.  Richard 
has  now  become  powerful,  and  he  delegates  to  others 
the  performance  of  deeds  which  he  deems  necessary  to 
his  purpose  and  his  safety.  Not  by  physical  acts  of  his 
own,  but  by  the  power  of  his  intellect  he  henceforth 
rules,  for  to  his  mental  power  everything  must  yield. 
The  intellectual  superiority  which  Richard  possesses  and 
feels  he  does  possess,  causes  him  to  indulge  in  displays 
of  humour,  spleen  and  sarcasm,  and  to  sport  with  the 
minds  of  others  as  well  as  his  own.  In  the  melo- 
dramatic hash  of  Gibber,  the  chief  feature  of  the 
principal  character — his  intellectual  superiority — is 
submerged,  while  the  language  is  terribly  marred  and 
mutilated.  In  Shakspere's  play  the  language  and 
thought  are  in  unison  with  each  other,  and  the  true 
height  of  poetry  and  passion  is  constantly  sustained. 
This  production  by  Mr.  Phelps  was  most  successful,  for 
it  ran  a  great  number  of  nights.  This  revolution  in 
managerial  taste — and  no  less  a  word  describes  it — won 
general  praise ;  and  it  was  not  undeservedly  said,  that 
the  revival  was  a  histrionic  triumph  to  which  it  would 
be  difficult  to  find  a  parallel  in  modern  times.  In  1870, 
Mr.  C.  Calvert  produced  this  history  according  to  the 
text  of  Shakspere  in  the  autumn  of  the  year,  at  the 
Prince's  Theatre,  Manchester.  This  revival  was  highly 
successful,  running  not  less  than  sixty-nine  nights.  On 
January  2gth,  1877,  Richard  III.  was  produced  at  the 


41 

Lyceum  Theatre,  by  Mr.  J.  H.  Irving,  who  with  praise- 
worthy admiration  of  the  great  master's  works,  placed 
Shakspere's  play,  not  the  Cibberian  compilation,  upon 
the  Lyceum  stage.  In  the  intellectual  phase  of  Richard's 
character,  his  sarcasm  and  his  grim  humour,  are  said  to 
have  been  well  personated  by  Mr.  Irving. 

HENRY  VIII.,  26  Editions.  In  1753,  a  version  of  this 
history  was  produced,  in  which  some  alterations  were 
effected  in  the  language  and  some  omissions  were 
indulged  in.  This  version  was  again  produced  at 
Co  vent  Garden  Theatre  on  November  6th,  1773.  In 
175%>  Joseph  Grove  published  this  history  under  the 
title  of  "  The  Life  of  Henry  VIII.,  by  Mr.  William 
Shakspere,  in  which  are  interspersed  Historical  Notes, 
Moral  Reflections  and  Observations,  in  respect  to  the 
unhappy  fate  Cardinal  Wolsey  met  with/'  In  1805,  it 
was  revised  and  altered  by  J.  P.  Kemble,  a  second 
edition  of  his  revision  being  published  in  1815.  In  this 
version  of  Kemble' s,  there  are  many  inaccuracies  of  the 
text,  and  much  of  Shakspere's  language  is  omitted.  The 
scene  between  the  Queen  and  the  two  Cardinals  which 
begins  the  third  act  is  left  out,  and  in  the  third  scene  of 
the  first  act  some  lines  are  introduced  which  cannot  be 
found  in  the  original  text.  Kemble' s  alteration  cannot 
be  looked  upon  as  any  improvement  upon  the  version  of 
1753,  inasmuch  as  he  omits  more  of  the  original  text 
and  indulges  in  more  alterations,  transposing  speeches 
from  one  character  to  another,  thus  destroying  the 
characterization  of  the  poet  and  at  the  same  time 
demonstrating  his  own  folly  and  weakness,  in  seeking 
to  improve  the  productions  of  an  author  whom  he  so 
frequently  misinterpreted  and  misunderstood.  His 
various  revised  versions  furnish  the  fullest  evidence  of 

E 


42 

the  fact.  Lines,  like  the  following,  do  not  possess  the 
true  Shaksperean  ring,  and  though  added  by  the  revisor 
they  do  not  add  to  the  strength  of  the  play  : — 

Lord  Chamberlain.   Your  lordship  shall  along, 
Lord  Sands.   Ay,  ay  ;  if  the  beauties  are  there, 

I  must  make  one  among  them,  to  be  sure. 

The  first  act  is  concluded  by  a  speech  of  the  king 
addressed  to  the  masquers  and  the  great  cardinal,  and 
the  sense  and  force  are  completely  destroyed  by  Kemble's 
alteration,  which  runs  as  follows  : — 

"  You  must  give  us  leave, 
To  keep  these  ladies  from  their  rest,  awhile. 
I  have  another  measure  yet  to  lead  'em, 
Which,  being  ended,  they  shall  all  go  sleep. 
Then  this,  which  does  a  happy  vision  teem, 
May  be  again  repeated  in  a  dream." 


TRAGEDIES. 


MACBETH,  51  Editions.  January  7th,  1666-7,  good 
gossip  Pepy's  thus  writes  :  "  To  the  Duke's  House,  and 
saw  "  Macbeth ;  "  which  though  I  saw  it  lately,  yet 
appears  a  most  excellent  play  in  all  respects,  but 
especially  in  divertisement,  though  it  be  a  deep  tra- 
gedy; which  is  a  strange  perfection  in  a  tragedy,  it 
being  most  proper  here  and  suitable/'*  In  1672  Sir 
Wm.  Davenant  so  altered,  amended  and  added  to  this 
tragedy,  that  he  suceeded  in  converting  it  into  an  opera, 
which  he  produced  at  the  Duke's  Theatre,  and  it  met 
with  very  great  success.  Five  editions  of  this  version, 
containing  all  the  additions  and  so-called  improvements, 
were  published:  one  in  1673,  two  in  1674,1  one  in  1695, 

*  Diary,  Vol.  m.,  p.  120. 

t  Thomas  Buffet,  who  was  "a  milliner  in  the  new  Exchange"  and  author  of  "  The 
Mock  Tempest,"  also  wrote  a  burlesque  called  "  The  Empress  of  Morocco,"  in  ridicule  of 
Elkanah  Settle's  tragedy  of  "The  Emperor  of  Morocco."  The  piece  is  somewhat  coarse, 
was  published  in  1674,  and  in  its  curious  epilogue,  Buffet  alludes  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  tragedy  of  Macbeth  had  bei_n  produced.  "A  new  fancy,  after  the  old  and  most 
surprising  way  of  Macbeth,  performed  with  new  and  costly  machines,  which  were  invented 
and  managed  by  the  most  ingenious  operator,  Mr.  Henry  Wright,  P.  G.  2."  It  was 
evidently  a  travestie,  for  Hecate  and  three  witches  pursue  their  course  "  according  to  the 
famous  mode  of  Macbeth,  commence  the  most  renowned  and  melodious  song  of  John  Bory 
being  heard  as  it  were  in  the  air,  sung  in  parts  by  spirits,  to  raise  the  expectation,  and 
charm  the  audience  with  thoughts  sublime,  and  worthy  of  the  heroick  scene  which 
follows."  This  particular  scene  commences  after  those  of  Macbeth,  for  "  thunder  and 
lightning"  is  discovered.  Three  witches  fly  over  the  pit  riding  upon  besoms.  Then  Hecate 
descends  over  the  stage  "  in  a  glorious  chariot  adorned  with  pictures  of  hell  and  devils,  and 
made  of  a  large  wicker  basket."  Thee  is  also  an  allusion  to  the  house  in  which  Macbeth 
was  originally  produced,  for  Hecate  says,—"  Bank-side  maulkin  thrice  has  mew'd." 


44 

and  one  in  1710.  In  this  improved  version,  Davenant 
has  omitted  many  of  the  finest  speeches,  and  introduced 
a  considerable  quantity  of  mere  rubbish.  The  great 
fault  which  pervades  this  version,  is  the  wanton  and 
unnecessary  changes  which  are  made  in  the  text,  for 
there  is  scarcely  ten  successive  lines  to  be  found,  which 
Davenant  has  not  so  mutilated,  that  in  most  instances  he 
has  destroyed  the  grandeur  and  meaning  of  the  original 
text.  The  judgment  of  Steevens  upon  this  alteration, 
though  severe,  is  truly  just,  for  there  cannot  be  much 
doubt  that  "  almost  every  original  beauty  is  either 
awkwardly  disguised,  or  arbitrarily  omitted "  by 
Davenant.  The  speeches  of  Rosse  are  given  to  other 
characters, — the  part  of  Seyton  is  considerably  enlarged, 
so  is  that  of  Macduff  and  also  his  wife,  who,  when  Lady 
Macbeth  enters  for  the  first  time,  enters  with  her.  In 
the  scene  preceding  the  murder,  the  solemnity  of  the 
occasion  is  destroyed  by  the  alteration  Davenant  has 
made  in  the  couplet  which  is  spoken  by  Macbeth  when 
he  quits  the  stage  to  do  the  deed  without  a  name : — 

"  Hear  it  not  Duncan,  it  is  a  bell, 

That  rings  my  coronation  and  thy  knell." 

Malcolm  and  Macduff  meet  at  "  Birnam  Wood  "  instead 
of  in  "gracious  England,"  and  the  ghost  of  Duncan 
haunts  Lady  Macbeth,  so  working  upon  her  fears  that 
she  tries  to  persuade  her  husband  to  resign  the  crown. 
The  murder  of  MacdufFs  "  wife  and  babies  "  is  related 
by  Lennox  instead  of  Rosse,  Lady  Macbeth's  two  last 
speeches  are  omitted,  and  the  scene  with  the  doctor  and 
Macbeth  is  fearfully  mangled.  In  the  incantation  scene 
in  the  fourth  act,  a  dance  of  furies  is  introduced  to  add 
to  its  attractions.  Lennox,  instead  of  young  Siward, 
fights  with  Macbeth  and  is  killed,  but  before  dying  he 
most  politely  apologises  to  his  "poor  country"  for 


45 

doing  so.  In  the  fifth  act,  Davenant  has  added  a  good 
deal  of  his  own,  though  he  only  gives  Macbeth  one  line, 
as  a  dying  speech.  In  1731,  it  was  altered  by  Mr.  Tate 
and  published  in  Edinburgh,  and  in  1750,  the  tragedy 
was  published  with  all  the  original  songs  ;  this  version 
running  through  two  more  editions, — one  in  1755,  and 
one  in  1768.  In  1748,  Garrick  produced  this  tragedy, 
pretending  to  omit  the  rubbish  which  had  been  added 
by  Davenant.  This  he  did  not  wholly  do  ;  the  main 
portions  of  the  additions  he  left  out,  and  then,  to  show 
how  thoroughly  he  understood  Shakspere,  he  added  a 
contemptible  dying  speech  to  the  part  of  Macbeth. 
This  was  an  opportunity,  that  this  truly  poetic  adaptor 
could  not  let  slip  by  of  showing  his  skill  in  the 
expression  of  convulsive  throes  and  dying  agonies, 
however,  unsuited  such  acting  might  be  to  the  occasion, 
or  to  the  intent  of  the  author.  In  1753,  a  Mr.  Lee  newly 
adapted  it  for  the  stage  at  Edinburgh,  and  in  1773, 
another  edition  of  this  version  was  published  by  Jenner. 
In  1794,  it  was  adapted  and  revised  by  J.  P.  Kemble, 
two  other  editions  of  his  revised  version  being  published, 
one  in  1803  and  one  in  1814.  During  the  time  the 
Royal  Circus,  in  St.  George's  Fields,  afterwards  the 
Surrey  Theatre,  was  under  the  management  of  Mr. 
Elliston,  he  produced  a  version  of  Macbeth  in  verse  on 
September  23rd,  1809.  The  alteration  is  said  to  have 
been  executed  by  Mr.  J.  C.  Cross,  who  had  written 
numerous  dramatic  pieces  for  the  same  house.  There 
were  several  new  scenes  introduced,  and  the  murder  of 
Duncan  was  perpetrated  in  a  bedchamber  in  the 
presence  of  the  audience.  The  fulness  of  comprehension 
and  thorough  acquaintance  of  Mr.  Cross  with  the 
Shaksperean  drama  is  evidenced  in  his  rendering  of  the 
scene  containing  the  famous  soliloquy  : — 


46 

"  Is  this  a  dagger  that  I  see  befofe  me  ? 

My  brains  are  scattered  in  a  whirlwind  stormy." 

To  avoid  the  law  then  existing  relative  to  the  production 
of  the  legitimate  drama,  the  house  being  a  minor  one,  a 
ballet  d'action  was  also  served  up,  and  the  whole  was 
preceded  by  a  grand  entree,  composed  in  rhyme  by  Dr. 
Busby,  in  which  all  manner  of  good  things  were  mixed 
together.  The  conclusion  of  the  address  refers  to  the 
position  the  manager  was  placed  in,  owing  to  the 
monopoly  possessed  by  the  two  great  houses. 

"To  prove  we  keep  our  duties  full  in  view, 
And  what  we  must  not  say,  resolve  to  do; 
Convinc'd  that  you  will  deem  our  zeal  sincere, 
Since  more  by  deeds  than  woras  it  will  appear." 

In  1847,  on  June  iyth,  "  Macbeth  Travestie,"  a  burlesque, 
was  produced  and  played  on  the  day  of  the  regatta  at 
Henley.  It  was  written  and  published  at  Oxford,  in 

1847,  and  three  other  editions  were  published, — one  in 

1848,  one  in  1849,  an<^  one  ^n  London  in    1853.     It  was 
afterwards   produced   at   the   Strand  Theatre,  January 
loth,  1848,  and  reproduced  with  many  alterations  and 
additions  at  the    Olympic  Theatre,  April   25th,    1853. 
In  1849,  a  phonetic  edition  of  this  tragedy  was  published. 
In  1853,  an  edition,  edited  by  Mr,  Hastings  Elwin,  was 
printed  and  published  at  Norwich.     The  avowed  object 
and  intent  of  this  edition  being  an  attempt  to  restore  the 
original  text.     In  1856,  this  tragedy  was  altered,  adapted 
and  produced  as  a  grand  equestrian  spectacle  at  Astley's 
Amphitheatre.      In  1868,  an  edition  was  arranged  for 
reading  by  Mr.  Rayne.     In  1877,  an  edition  of  Macbeth, 
according  to  the  first  folio  was  published.     The  object  of 
its  editor,  Mr.  A.  P.  Paton,  being  to  preserve  Shakspere's 
use  of  capital  letters,  for  they  constitute  "  the  key  to  the 
way  in  which  he  read  his  own  works,  and  in  which  they 


47 

ought  to  be  read  by  others.3'  The  spelling  is  modernised, 
and  the  edition  is  called  the  "Hamnet."  In  1878,  Mr. 
Paton  published  Hamlet;  and  in  1879,  Cymbeline  and 
Timon  of  Athens  were  also  published. 

TROILUS  AND  CRESSIDA,  14  Editions.  In  1679,  this 
Tragedy  was  altered  by  John  Dryden,  and  produced  at 
the  Dorset  Garden  Theatre,  under  the  title  of  "  Troilus 
and  Gressida,  a  Truth  proved  too  late."  Two  other 
editions  of  this  version  were  published, — one  in  1 695  and 
one  in  1735.  Dryden,  in  the  preface  to  his  version  of 
the  tragedy,  says,  "  The  original  story  was  written  by 
Lollius,  a  Lombard,  in  Latin  verse  and  translated  by 
Chaucer  into  English.  Shakspere,  in  the  apprenticeship 
of  his  writing,  modelled  it  into  that  play  which  is  now 
called  by  the  name  of  Troilus  and  Cressida.  "I,"  says 
Dryden,  "  new  modelled  the  plot,  threw  out  many  un- 
necessary persons,  improved  those  characters  which 
were  begun  and  left  unfinished, — as  Hector,  Troilus, 
Pandarus  and  Thersites,  and  adding  to  that  of  Andro- 
mache." This  is  remarkably  cool  and  modest  on  the 
part  of  Dryden,  and  it  is  only  excelled  by  Langbaine's 
opinion  of  Dryden's  version,  that  "the  last  scene  in  the 
third  act  is  a  master-piece." 

Act  i  opens  with  the  Grecian  camp,  being  the  3rd 
scene  of  Shakspere' s  tragedy.  This  scene  is  greatly 
shortened,  but  the  language  is  chiefly  Shakspere's. 
Scene  i  and  2  then  follow  without  any  very  material 
changes. 

Act  2  opens  with  another  revision,  Priam,  Hector 
and  others  are  discovered,  and  this  scene  is  materially 
altered.  In  the  ensuing  scenes  between  Pandarus  and 
Cressida  and  Pandarus  and  Troilus,  not  more  than 
twenty  lines  belong  to  Shakspere.  The  first  part  of  the 


48 

scene  between  Ulysses  and  Nestor  is  from  Shakspere, 
and  the  remainder  belongs  to  Dryden. 

Act  3.  The  alterations  are  very  slight  until  the 
concluding  scene  between  Hector  and  Troilus,  which  is 
wholly  Dryden's. 

Act  4.  The  arrangement  of  this  act  is  altogether 
different,  for  Dryden,  to  please  the  ladies,  represents 
Cressida  as  true  to  Troilus.  Most  of  the  language  in 
this  act  is  the  production  of  Dryden. 

Act  5.  This  is  chiefly  distinguished  by  the  absence 
of  the  language  of  Shakspere,  and  the  change  in  the 
termination  of  the  tragedy.  Andromache  prevails  on 
Hector  not  to  go  forth  to  fight,  but  Troilus  carries  him 
off  to  battle.  Troilus  strikes  down  Diomed,  whom 
Cressida  tries  to  save — this  makes  Troilus  jealous  ;  then 
Cressida,  to  prove  her  constancy,  kills  herself;  Troilus 
kills  Diomed,  and  Achilles  kills  Troilus. 

The  part  of  the  fierce  prophetess,  the  wild  Cassandra, 
is  entirely  omitted  by  Dryden,  who  in  the  plenitude  and 
superiority  of  his  poetic  powers  (?)  has  materially 
weakened  the  character  of  "the  hope  of  Troy/'  the 
warlike  Hector. 

TIMON  OF  ATHENS,  14  Editions.  In  1678,  Thomas 
Shad  well  altered  this  Tragedy,  and  thought  so  highly 
of  his  production,  that  in  the  dedication  to  George,  Duke 
of  Buckingham,  he  modestly  observes,  that  "this  play 
was  originally  Shakspere's,  who  never  made,"  says  he, 
"  more  masterly  strokes  than  in  this  ;  yet  I  can  truly 
say,  I  have  made  it  into  a  play."  Shadwell  so  well 
understood  Shakspere,  that  he  spoils  the  character  of 
Flavius,  by  making  him  desert  his  master,  and  he  also 
introduces  some  love  passages  between  Timon,  Evandra 
and  Melissa,  two  female  characters  new  to  the  tragedy. 


49 

Timon  professes  a  regard  for  Evandra,  but  loves  Melissa 
so  much,  that  he  cannot  live  without  her.  Melissa 
forsakes  Timon  in  the  hour  of  his  adversity,  while 
Evandra  remains  faithful  and  endeavours  to  console 
Timon.  In  the  fifth  act  Timon  and  Evandra  enter  the 
cave, — the  former  dies  and  the  latter  kills  herself.  The 
play  terminates  with  a  speech  by  Alcibiades  lamenting 
their  death.  The  incidents  are  thus  considerably  varied, 
while  the  alterations  effected  in  the  language  are  in  the 
highest  degree  detrimental  to  the  tragedy.  The 
character  of  Flavius,  the  steward  of  Timon,  is  entirely 
reversed  by  Shadwell,  who  so  thoroughly  comprehends 
the  intent  of  Shakspere,  that  he  makes  him  unfaithful  to 
his  master  and  thus  one  of  the  great  charms  of  the 
tragedy  is  destroyed.  This  alteration  when  produced  at 
Dorset  Garden  Theatre  did  not,  however,  succeed,  for 
its  non-success  is  evidently  alluded  to  in  the  prologue  to 
the  Jew  of  Venice  : 

"  How  was  the  scene  forlorn,  and  how  despis'd, 
When  Timon,  without  music,  moraliz'd  ? 
Shakspere's  sublime  in  vain  entic'd  the  throng, 
Without  the  charm  of  Purcell's  syren  song1." 

Some  years  afterwards  this  altered  version  was  re- 
vived, and  it  met  with  much  success,  remaining  on  the 
acting  list  for  many  years.  Three  other  editions  of 
Shadwell's  version  were  published :  one  in  1688,  one  in 
1703,  and  the  other  without  any  date.  The  notions  that 
prevailed  at  this  period  of  the  purpose,  nature  and 
construction  of  plays,  seem  to  have  been  very  peculiar 
ones.  They  were  evidently  derived  from  some  French 
definition,  and  they  appear  to  have  held  sway  for  some 
years.  Shakspere  was  held  to  be  a  wild  untutored 
genius,  given  to  irregularities,  and  his  dramas  were 
looked  upon  as  nondescript  productions,  which  required 

F 


50 

the  services  of  such  skilful  playwrights  as  Shadvvell  and 
others  to  lick  into  shape.  In  1 768,  James  Love  published 
an  alteration  of  this  tragedy,  based  upon  Shakspere  and 
Shad  well.  This  version  is  a  better  one  than  that  of 
Shadwell's,  for  Love  has  not  indulged  in  so  much 
alteration  of  the  scenes  and  the  language  of  Shakspere 
as  Shadwell  did.  He  is  guilty  of  many  omissions  of 
Shakspere's  text,  but  he  most  decidedly  improves  the 
language  of  Shadwell,  and  had  he  only  left  out  the  lines 
written  by  that  improver  and  inserted  more  of  Shakspere, 
he  would  have  considerably  improved  his  version.  In 
the  same  year  the  tragedy  was  altered  and  revised  by 
Dance.  In  1771,  it  was  altered  by  Richard  Cumberland 
and  produced  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre,  on  December  4th. 
In  this  alteration,  Cumberland  changes,  clips  and 
contorts  many  of  the  sentences,  omits  several  of  the 
scenes  and  adds  considerably  to  the  language  of  the 
tragedy,  for  the  last  act,  with  the  exception  of  about  two 
pages,  being  entirely  written  by  him.  This  alteration, 
like  that  of  Shadwell's,  is  marked  by  the  same  fault, 
viz.,  the  leaving  out  the  language  and  scenes  of  Shaks- 
pere, and  the  result  accomplished  is  the  spoilation  of 
the  qualities  of  the  play.  In  1786,  a  new  alteration  of 
Shakspere  and  Shadwell  was  produced  by  Mr.  Hull,  and 
played  at  Covent  Garden  Theatre.  In  1 8 1 6,  the  tragedy 
was  again  altered  and  adapted  for  representation  by  the 
Hon.  G.  Lamb. 

CORIOLANUS,  24  Editions.  In  1682,  Nahum  Tate 
altered  this  Tragedy  and  produced  it  at  the  Theatre 
Royal,  under  the  title  of"  The  Ingratitude  of  a  Common- 
wealth, or  the  Fall  of  Caius  Marius."  This  alteration 
is  composed  of  omissions,  changes  of  incidents  and 
language,  and  of  many  additions,  so  that  the  beauty  of 


51 

the  original  play  is  entirely  marred.  The  action  of  the 
tragedy  is  much  altered,  and  tasteless  insipidity  dis- 
places the  splendid  language  of  Shakspere.  New 
characters  are  also  introduced,  among  whom  occurs 
Nigridius,  a  villain  discharged  by  Coriolanus,  and  who 
enters  the  service  of  Aufidius,  becoming  one  of  the  chief 
instruments  in  producing  the  results  of  the  tragedy. 
The  fifth  act  is  mainly  composed  of  Tate's  additions. 
Volumnia,  Valeria  and  others  enter  at  Rome, — Volum- 
nia,  hearing  that  Nigridius  has  formed  a  plot  against 
the  life  of  her  son,  sets  off  for  Corioles  with  Virgilia  and 
young  Martius.  Aufidius  and  Nigridius  enter — then 
follows  the  scene  with  Coriolanus  and  the  Volscians- — 
this  is  partly  from  Shakspere.  Coriolanus  fights  with 
Aufidius  and  his  party — they  are  both  mortally  wounded 
— Aufidius  threatens  to  ravish  Virgilia  in  her  husband's 
presence — she  is  brought  in  wounded — Aufidius  and 
Virgilia  die — Nigridius  boasts  that  he  has  racked  young 
Martius — Coriolanus  asks  : — 

"  Well,  Cerberus,  how  then  did'st  thou  dispose  him  ? 
Did'st  eat  .him  ? 

Nigridius  answers,  that  he  threw  him  with  his  limbs  all 
broken,  though  still  alive,  into  the  arms  of  Volumnia, 
who  then  enters  mad  with  young  Martius — she  kills 
Nigridius  and  runs  off — Martius  dies,  and  Coriolanus 
concludes  the  play  with  a  dying  speech.  The  characters 
of  Valeria  and  Volumnia  are  entirely  changed,  the 
former  being  quite  a  lack-a-daisical  part,  and  the 
language  given  to  the  latter  in  her  mad  scene  is  utterly 
contemptible.  In  1719,  it  was  altered  by  John  Dennis, 
and  produced  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre,  as  "The  Invader 
of  his  Country,  or  the  Fatal  Resentment."  A  second 
edition  of  this  version  was  published  in  1721.  About 


half  the  original  play  has  been  retained,  in  which 
Dennis  has  made  many  alterations  in  the  lines  ;  the 
remainder  of  the  play  is  made  up  of  his  additions,  which 
are  of  the  feeblest  character.  Dennis  has  also  introduced 
much  more  low  comedy  in  his  version  than  the  original 
tragedy  contains,  though  he  has  left  out  the  humourous 
speeches  of  Menenius.  Each  act  is  terribly  mutilated, 
the  scenes  being  changed  and  the  beauty  of  the  language 
spoilt  by  the  alterations.  The  3rd  act  concludes  with  a 
parting  scene  between  Coriolanus  and  Virgilia : 

Cor.  "Adieu! 

In  quest  of  great  revenge  thy  lover  flies. 
Virg.      Support  me,  virgins,  for  Virgilia  dies." 

Act  4  commences  with  Coriolanus  at  Antium,  the 
three  first  scenes  being  omitted  and  much  low  comedy 
is  introduced.  Aufidius  and  the  Volscians  are  discover- 
ed, and  Coriolanus  is  brought  in.  The  act  finishes  with 
the  citizens  in  Rome  driving  off  their  Tribunes  with  the 
intention  of  hurling  them  from  the  Tarpeian  rock. 

Act  5  commences  with  Aufidius  and  his  officers — 
then  Coriolanus,  Volumnia  and  other  ladies  enter — 
Aufidius  goes  out — Volumnia  threatens  to  kill  herself, 
but  does  not ;  Aufidius  re-enters,  fights  with  Coriolanus 
and  gets  slain  ;  the  Volscians  rush  on  and  kill 
Coriolanus,  and  Cominius  finishes  the  piece. 

This  alteration  by  Dennis  is  one  among  the  worst 
ever  perpetrated,  for  though  a  professed  critic  in  matters 
dramatic,  the  result  of  his  labours  in  this  particular 
instance  fully  demonstrates  his  non-understanding  of 
the  poet's  intent  and  power  of  characterisation,  and  his 
non-efficiency  for  the  position  he  had  assumed.  Cibber 
and  Tate  had  been  guilty  of  gross  mutilation,  and  they 
certainly  have  never  surpassed  the  mangling  of  the 
work  of  Shakspere  as  Dennis  has  done  in  this  disrepu- 


53 

table  version.  In  1 748,  "  Coriolanus,"  a  tragedy^founded 
on  Shakspere's,  was  published,  and  it  was  acted  at 
Covent  Garden  Theatre  in  1749.  It  was  the  work  of 
James  Thomson,  the  author  of  "The  Seasons,"  and 
"The  Castle  of  Indolence,"  and  he  has  in  no  way 
improved  upon  the  original  play.  Thomson's  production 
is  cold  and  declamatory  when  compared  with  Shakspere, 
and  he  has  also  grossly  misrepresented  the  principal 
character.  This  is  a  result  that  was  to  be  expected,  for 
the  poetic  powers  of  Thomson  did  not  possess  a  dramatic 
tendency.  In  1750,  a  mosaic  tragedy,  composed  of 
Shakspere  and  Thomson  was  produced  by  Mr.  Thomas 
Sheridan,  "  in  order  to  adapt  it  better  to  the  taste  of  the 
audience  of  the  city  of  Dublin."  This  alteration  was 
published  anonymously,  and  was  called  "  Coriolanus,  or 
the  Roman  Matron,"  and  was  afterwards  produced  at 
Covent  Garden  Theatre  in  December,  1754,  and  in 
March,  1758.  In  1789,  J.  P.  Kemble  produced  "Corio- 
lanus," as  altered  from  Sheridan  and  Thomson,  and  in 
1 80 1,  he  introduced  "Coriolanus,"  with  additions  by 
Thomson.*  In  1806,  it  was  again  revised  by  Kemble, 
and  three  more  editions  were  published, — one  in  1811, 
one  in  1812,  and  one  in  1814.  In  1820,  the  tragedy 
underwent  another  alteration  at  the  hands  of  R.  W. 
Elliston. 

JULIUS  CESAR,  43  Editions.  In  1677,  this  tragedy 
was  altered  and  revised  by  Sir  Charles  Sedley,  a  second 
edition  of  this  alteration  being  published  in  1796.  In 


*  "  The  revival  of  Coriolanus  was  a  mixture  of  Thomson  and  Shakspere's  tragedies, 
•with  five  of  the  best  scenes  in  the  latter  omitted,  and  what  was  judicious  in  the  former, 
marred.  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  Kemble  had  only  that  sort  of  regard  for  Shakspere 
which  people  have  for  the  picturesque,  who  tear  away  ivy  from  a  church-tower  in  order  to 
whitewash  its  walls." — DORAN'S  Their  Majesty's  Servants,  vol.  ii,,  p.  376, 


54 

1684,  Julius  Caesar  was  revived  at  the  Theatre  Royal, 
and  some  slight  alterations  were  made  in  the  text,  and 
also  some  transpositions  of  parts  were  effected.  Mar- 
cel lus  was  given  to  Casca,  and  the  part  of  Cicero  given 
to  Trebonius.  An  edition  of  this  version  was  published 
the  same  year  of  its  production.  In  1722,  it  was  altered 
by  John  Sheffield,  Duke  of  Buckingham,  who  divided  it 
into  two  plays :  one  called  "  The  Death  of  Marcus 
Brutus,"  and  the  other  "Julius  Caesar."  Julius  Caesar 
is  based  upon  the  first  three  acts  of  Shakspere's  tragedy, 
and  considerable  additions  and  also  alterations  are 
made,  none  of  which  have  a  tendency  to  add  to  the 
worth  and  greatness  of  the  original,  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  detract  most  materially  therefrom.  "  The  Death 
of  Marcus  Brutus  "  is  composed  of  the  last  two  acts  of 
Shakspere's  Julius  Caesar,  with  additional  characters 
introduced  to  make  up  the  necessary  five  acts.  Junia 
the  wife  of  Cassius,  Dolabella,  Varius,  are  among  the 
new  characters  added  to  the  dramatis  personae.  To  each 
of  these  plays  was  added  a  prologue,  and  the  choruses 
were  written  after  the  manner  of  the  ancients.  In  these 
two  plays  the  author  endeavours  to  preserve  the  unities 
of  time,  place  and  action.  He  makes  the  play  of  Julius 
Ceesar  to  begin  "  the  day  before  Caesar's  death,  and  to 
end  an  hour  after  it."  In  Marcus  Brutus  "the  play 
begins  the  day  before  the  battle  of  Phillippi,  and  ends 
with  it."  The  noble  adaptor  regrets  that  he  cannot 
preserve  the  unity  of  place  owing  to  the  scene  changing 
from  Athens  to  Phillippi,  and  confesses  he 

"  Commits  one  crime  that  needs  an  act  of  grace, 
And  breaks  the  law  of  unity  of  place." 

His  excessive  politeness  renders  him  most  anxious 
to  polish  the  "  rude  lines  "  and  "  wood-notes  wild  "  of 
the  gentle  Shakspere,  and  this  he  fails  not  to  do,  though 


55 

in  doing  it,  he  does  not  fail  to  destroy  the  quality  and 
vigour  of  the  original  text.  The  Shaksperean  lines, 

"  The  evil  that  men  do  lives  after  them  ; 
The  good  is  oft  interred  with  their  bones ;  " 

he  conceives  to  be  wanting  in  finish,  and  they  are  also 
strongly  marked  by  coarseness  and  vulgarity.  This  he 
wishes  to  avoid  and  substitutes  for  the  latter  line  his 
polished  one  of  "The  good  is  often  buried  in  their 
graves."  There  is  not  a  scene  in  the  whole  play  that  he 
does  not  in  some  way  or  other  presume  to  alter,  yet  he 
excepts  from  improvement  the  oration  of  Antony,  which 
he  gives  as  Shakspere  wrote  it.  Two  of  the  choruses 
for  one  of  these  plays  was  written  by  the  poet,  Pope. 
In  1729,  these  two  pieces  were  intended  to  be  played 
together,  for  which  purpose  the  choruses  were  all  set  to 
music  by  the  great  Bononcini.  Owing  to  a  scarcity  of 
English  voices  and  to  the  exorbitant  demands  of  the 
Italian  singers,  this  design  was  laid  aside.  Two  other 
editions  of  this  ducal  version  were  published, — one  in 
1723,  and  the  other  without  date.  In  1765,  the  following 
ridiculous  lines  were  first  added  to  the  fourth  act  of  this 
play.  They  were  spoken  by  Walker  in  the  character  of 
Brutus,  and  were  first  printed  in  Bell's  edition  of  "  Julius 
Caesar,"  published  in  1773. 

"  Sure  they  have  raised  some  devil  to  their  aid, 
And  think  to  frighten  Brutus  with  a  shade  ; 
But  ere  the  night  closes  this  fatal  day, 
I'll  send  more  ghosts  this  visit  to  repay." 

In  1811,  J.  P.  Kemble  adapted  this  tragedy  for  the 
stage,  and  three  editions  of  his  adaptation  were  pub- 
lished, one  in  1811,  one  in  1812  and  one  in  1814. 

ANTONY  AND  CLEOPATRA,  18  Editions.     In  1677,  a 
tragedy   under  this    title   was   produced  at  the  Dorset 


56 

Garden  Theatre.  It  was  written  in  rhyme  by  Sir 
Charles  Sedley,  who  has  not  borrowed  anything  from 
Shakspere.  In  1678,  John  Dry  den  produced  a  tragedy 
„"  All  for  Love,  or  The  World  Well  Lost/'  This  is  not 
Jan  alteration  of  Shakspere,  but  merely  an  imitation  of 
fas  style  based  upon  the  incidents  of  Antony  and  the 
Egyptian  Queen.  In  1758,  Capel  and  Garrick  adapted 
this  tragedy  for  the  stage  by  abridgment  and  transposi- 
tions. This  joint  alteration  did  not  answer  Garrick's 
expectations  -when  it  was  acted  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre, 
on  January  3rd,  1759,  for  though  it  was  produced  with 
the  advantages  of  new  scenes,  dresses  and  decorations, 
it  was  a  failure.  It  was  played  but  six  nights,  although 
its  cast  was  strongly  aided  by  the  valuable  services  of  the 
famous  Mrs.  Yates,  in  the  part  of  Cleopatra.  The  failure 
of  this  version  was  partly  owing  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  tragedy  had  been  abridged,  and  partly  to  Garrick's 
person  not  being  important  enough  for  the  part  of  the 
"Herculean  Roman,"  Antony.  In  1778,  H.  Brooke 
published  Antony  and  Cleopatra,  one-half  thereof  being 
derived  from  Shakspere,  the  remaining  half  being  his 
own.  Three  new  characters  are  added  in  this  version, 
viz.,  two  children  of  Antony  and  Cleopatra  and  her 
brother,  Ptolemy.  The  characters  of  Csesar,  Octavia, 
and  others  are  omitted.  In  1813,  on  November  i5th, 
"Antony  and  Cleopatra,"  was  produced  at  Covent 
Garden  Theatre.  This  version  is  composed  of  Shak- 
spere and  Dryden  and  it  is  attributed  to  J.  P.  Kemble, 
though  his  name  does  not  appear  upon  the  title-page. 
In  this  version,  parts  of  the  scenes  by  Shakspere  *are 
interwoven  with  those  by  Dryden,  scenes  are  also 
transposed  from  one  act  to  another,  and  a  general  com- 
mingling of  the  two  authors'  words  not  unfrequently 
takes  place.  The  incidents  are  changed  at  pleasure, 


57 

and  omissions  form  the  rule  and  not  the  exception.  The 
character  of  the  syren  queen,  "  the  old  serpent  of  the 
Nile,"  is  materially  injured,  for  her  speeches  are  so 
frequently  clipt. 

Act  i.  The  alterations  in  this  act  are  not  very 
numerous  nor  of  much  importance.  The  language  does 
not  differ  greatly  from  the  original  text,  though  as  usual 
the  changes  are  for  the  worse, 

Act  2  begins  with  Shakspere's  second  scene — the 
description  of  Cleopatra  on  the  Cydnus  is  most  injudi- 
ciously omitted  ;  then  follows  the  fifth  scene  of  Cleopatra 
and  her  attendants ;  next  a  scene  between  Antony  and 
Octavia  at  Athens,  from  Shakspere's  third  act ;  then 
Cleopatra  at  Alexandria.  The  first  part  of  this  scene  is 
from  Shakspere,  but  when  Antony  enters,  the  conclusion 
of  the  act  is  from  Dryden. 

Act  3.  The  sixth  scene  of  Shakspere  furnishes  the 
opening  scene  of  this  act ;  then  follows  the  seventh 
scene — the  battle  of  Actium  is  fought  in  sight  of  the 
audience,  and  the  act  terminates  as  in  Shakspere  with 
but  slight  alterations. 

Act  4  is  mainly  the  production  of  Dryden,  none  of 
whose  scenes  can  in  any  way  be  compared  with  those  of 
Shakspere,  nor  do  they  possess  the  truthfulness  of  cha- 
racterisation nor  the  force  of  language  which  marks  the 
work  of  the  elder  bard. 

Act  5.  This  act  is  a  mosaic,  about  equally  composed 
of  Shakspere  and  Dryden.  Ventidius  destroys  himself, 
and  after  Antony  has  fallen  upon  his  sword,  the  tragedy 
is  continued  from  Shakspere,  though  the  omissions  are 
very  numerous,  and  it  concludes  with  two  short  scenes' 
partly  from  Shakspere,  and  with  a  grand  funeral  proces- 
sion. 

In  1833,  on  November  2ist,  another  version  composed 

G 


58 

of  Shakspere  and  Dryden  was  produced  at  Drury  Lane 
Theatre.  Mr.  Macready  was  Antony ;  Miss  Phillips, 
Cleopatra;  and  Mr.  Cooper,  Enobarbus.  In  1849,  tnig 
tragedy  was  produced  at  the  Sadler's  Wells  Theatre,  by 
Mr.  S.  Phelps,  who  enacted  the  part  of  Antony,  and  the 
text  of  Shakspere  was  scrupulously  adhered  to.  No 
transpositions  of  speeches  from  one  character  to  another, 
thus  destroying  the  characterisation  of  the  author,  was 
indulged  in,  but  each  spake  that  which  Shakspere 
himself  had  written.  The  tragedy  was  placed  upon  the 
stage  with  much  splendour  and  magnificence,  yet  the 
spectacular  effect  was  made  entirely  subservient  to  the 
illustrating  of  the  poet's  lines.  No  additions  of  Dryden 
were  inserted,  and  for  the  first  time  since  the  reign 
of  Charles  I.,  the  English  playgoer  had  an  oppor- 
tunity of  seeing  Antony  and  Cleopatra  acted  from 
the  original  text.  Miss  Glyn  was  the  Cleopatra;  Mr. 
H.  Marston,  Sextus  Pompey ;  and  Mr.  C.  Bennett, 
Enobarbus.  In  March,  1855,  Antony  and  Cleopatra 
was  produced  at  the  Standard  Theatre  with  great 
success.  Mr.  H.  Marston  and  Miss  Glyn  personating 
the  title  role.  In  September,  1866,  Mr.  Charles  Calvert 
arranged  this  tragedy  for  representation  in  four  acts, 
and  it  was  produced  at  the  Manchester  Theatre  Royal. 
Mr.  Calvert  was  Antony  ;  Mrs.  Calvert,  Cleopatra ;  and 
Mr.  J.  Lunt,  Enobarbus.  In  May,  1867,  it  was  produced 
at  the  Princess  Theatre,  and  ran  for  one  month.  Mr. 
H.  Loraine  was  Antony ;  Miss  Glyn,  Cleopatra.  On 
Saturday,  September  2ist,  1873,  aversion  of  Antony  and 
Cleopatra  was  produced  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre,  by  Mr. 
Chatterton.  This  version  was  adapted  by  Mr.  Andrew 
Halliday,  who  reduced  the  tragedy  to  four  acts  and 
compressed  the  thirty-three  scenes  of  the  original  play 
into  twelve.  He  also  sought  to  preserve  the  unities  of 


59 

time  and  place  as  closely  as  possible,  for  the  first  and 
second  acts  take  place  in  Rome,  while  the  third  and 
fourth  are  confined  to  Egypt.  The  early  part  of  this 
version  is  chiefly  devoted  to  scenic  and  ballet  effects,  so 
much  so,  that  to  a  large  quantity  of  the  painter, 
upholsterer  and  ballet-master's  art,  there  is  but  little  of 
Shakspere  to  leaven  the  mass.  The  tragedy  as  written 
by  Shakspere  contains  3014  lines,  but  this  version 
contains  only  1396  Shaksperean  lines.  Mr.  Halliday 
has  not  made  many  alterations  in  the  language  of 
Shakspere,  but  he  has  been  guilty  of  much  omission, 
and  what  is  still  worse,  the  transposing  of  scenes  and 
also  of  speeches  from  one  character  to  another.  He  has 
not  done  this  with  the  characters  of  Antony  and  Cleopa- 
tra, but  with  some  of  the  minor  characters,  to  the  injury 
of  the  play.  That  a  little  Shakspere  is  better  than  none 
at  all,  is  but  a  poor  excuse  or  apology  for  an  English 
dramatist,  or  adaptor,  to  seize  upon  one  of  the  grand 
works  of  the  great  dramatist,  as  a  convenient  peg  to 
hang  a  display  of  dumb  show  and  spectacle,  that 
belongeth  more  to  the  world  of  panorama  than  it  does 
to  the  dramatic  world.  It  is  but  fair  to  say,  that  Mr. 
Halliday  is  not  very  often  heard  in  the  representation  of 
this  adaptation,  but  he  is  very  frequently  seen  to  the 
detriment  of  the  action  of  the  tragedy  as  it  was  conceived 
and  executed  by  its  original  author.  However,  in  these 
days  of  realistic  sensations  and  upholstery  displays,  we 
must  be  content  with  the  excised  adaptations  which  the 
new  gods  of  the  theatrical  world  have  given  us. 

CYMBELINE,  30  Editions.  This  tragedy  has  under- 
gone frequent  alterations,— -Mr.  Thomas  D'Urfey  perpe- 
trating one  in  1682,  his  version  being  produced  at  the 
Dorset  Garden  Theatre,  and  it  was  called  "  The  Injured 


GO 

Princess,  or  The  Fatal  Wager."  The  changes  in  the 
plot  and  in  the  language  by  D'Urfey  are  of  the  most 
material  character,  and  like  most  other  of  the  alterations 
of  Shakspere,  they  are  really  vile.  Some  of  the  names 
of  the  characters  are  changed;  Eugenia  being  substituted 
for  Imogen  ;  Shatillon,  a  Frenchman,  for  lachimo ;  Ursa- 
ces  for  Posthumus ;  the  part  of  Guiderius  is  given  to 
Arviragus,  and  the  other  young  prince  is  called  Palladour. 
Pisanio  is  converted  into  an  elderly  part  and  made  to  be 
the  father  of  Clarina,  an  attendant  of  the  young  princess. 

Act  i.  Scene  i,  is  the  parting  of  Ursaces  and 
Eugenia;  only  a  few  lines  of  Shakspere  are  spoken. 
In  scene  2,  which  lies  in  France  and  is  the  scene  in 
which  Ursaces  and  Shatillon  lay  the  wager,  the 
language  is  mostly  Shakspere's, 

Act  2,  scene  i.  But  little  of  Shakspere  is  spoken  ;  in 
scene  2,  which  is  between  Shatillon  and  the  queen,  the 
language  is  about  one-half  by  Shakspere.  The  bed 
scene  of  Eugenia,  in  which  Shatillon  leaves  chest,  is 
not  much  varied.  Cloten  enters  with  the  musicians,  and 
Eugenia  speaks  some  Shaksperean  lines  about  the  loss 
of  her  bracelet. 

Act  3,  scene  i.  Shatillon  produces  the  bracelet,  and 
convinces  Ursaces  of  his  wife's  infidelity;  the  language 
is  chiefly  from  Shakspere.  Scene  2,  the  cave  scene, 
is  partly  from  Shakspere.  Bellarius  enters — then  Pisa- 
nio enters  with  Eugenia  in  man's  clothes ;  though  he 
believes  in  her  guilt,  he  spares  her,  and  gives  her  the 
phial  from  the  queen.  Nearly  the  whole  of  this  scene  is 
by  D'Urfey. 

Act  4,  scene  i.  The  queen,  enraged  at  the  escape  of 
Eugenia,  orders  Cloten's  friend,  lachimo,  to  punish 
Clarina  for  concealing  the  princess's  flight.  Scene  2, 
Eugenia  enters  from  the  cave ;  this  is  partly  from 


61 

Shakspere.  Scene  3,  Pisanio  and  Cloten,  in  the  clothes 
of  Ursaces,  enter — lachimo  drags  in  Clarina — Pisanio 
fights  with  lachimo,  kills  him  and  is  himself  wounded — 
Clarina  runs  off — Cloten  puts  out  the  eyes  of  Pisanio, 
The  next  scene  is  mainly  from  Shakspere,  Eugenia  being 
left  on  the  stage  as  dead ;  and  the  act  finishes  with  a 
new  scene  by  D'Urfey  between  Bellarius,  Arviragus  and 
Palladour. 

Act  5.  The  major  portion  of  this  act  is  by  D'Urfey, 
In  the  battle  Ursaces  saves  Cymbeline's  life — kills 
Shatillon,  who  previous  to  dying  acknowledges  Eu- 
genia's innocence — Ursaces  and  Eugenia  are  reconciled, 
and  Cymbeline  discovers  his  sons. 

There  is  just  enough  left  of  Shakspere's  language  to 
prevent  this  version  from  being  wholly  bad,  for  the  ad- 
ditions made  by  D'Urfey  are  of  the  weakest  and  flimsiest 
character,  not  even  being  applicable  to  the  period.  One 
example  will  suffice  :  Ursaces  says,  that  if  every  woman 
that  forfeits  honour  should  be  deprived  of  life, 

"  The  full-fed  city-dame  would  sin  in  fear, 
The  divine's  daughter  slight  the  amourous  cringe 
Of  her  tall  lover  ;  the  close  salacious  Puritan 
Forget  th'  appointment  with  her  canting  brother.'* 

In  1755,  it  was  altered  by  Charles  Marsh,  a  second 
edition  of  his  version  being  published  in  1762.  In  1759, 
it  was  altered  by  W.  Hawkins,  fellow  of  Pembroke 
College,  and  Professor  of  Poetry  in  the  University  of 
Oxford.  In  this  alteration  the  author  has  taken  all 
manner  of  liberties  with  Shakspere,  diverting  the  story, 
changing  the  nature  of  the  characters,  and  so  altering 
the  language  that  he  has  robbed  the  tragedy  of  all  its 
beauties.  Hawkins  has  sought  to  conform  this  tragedy 
to  classic  rules,  for  he  preserves  the  unities  of  time  and 
place,  though,  to  effect  this  purpose,  he  altogether  omits 


62 

the  part  of  lachimo.  In  1761,  it  was  altered  by  David 
Garrick,  whose  alteration  was  a  much  better  one  than 
that  of  D'Urfey's,  from  the  simple  reason  that  more  of 
Shakspere's  language  was  retained.  Two  other  editions 
of  Garrick's  version  were  published, — one  in  1762  and  one 
in  1767.  In  1778  it  was  altered  by  Harry  Brooke.  In 
this  version  Brooke  has  retained  a  great  many  of  the 
original  speeches,  but  he  has  materially  changed  the 
plot.  The  characters  of  the  young  princes,  Guiderius  and 
Arviragus,  are  omitted,  Cloten  is  made  a  serious  part, 
and  the  incidents  of  the  tragedy  are  also  much  changed. 
The  character  of  Posthumus  Leonatus  is  much  enlarged, 
though  it  is  not  by  any  means  improved.  Bellarius 
when  young,  had  privately  married  Adelaide,  the  sister 
of  Cymbeline,  who  being  with  child  while  her  husband 
was  on  an  embassy  to  the  Romans,  rather  than  acknow- 
ledge her  marriage,  which  she  thinks  might  prove 
injurious  to  her  husband,  is  sentenced  to  be  burnt  for 
her  unchastity  at  the  altar  of  Andate.  This  fate,  she 
however  avoids — Bellarius  turns  hermit,  kills  Cloten, 
assists  Cymbeline  against  the  Romans,  and  ultimately 
proves  to  be  the  father  of  Leonatus,  for  he  discovers  in 
the  priestess  of  the  temple,  his  wife  Adelaide.  In  1795, 
it  was  altered  by  Ambrose  Eccles.  In  1800,  it  was 
altered  and  revised  by  J.  P.  Kemble,  two  other  editions 
of  his  versions  being  published, — one  in  1810,  and  one 
in  1815.  In  1876,  an  expurgated  edition  of  this  tragedy, 
adapted  for  the  purpose  of  being  read  aloud,  was 
published.  Its  editor  was  Mr.  H.  Cundell,  and  it  forms 
a  portion  of  the  edition  of  Shakspere's  works,  known  as 
"  The  Boudoir  Shakspere." 

TITUS  ANDRONICUS,  8  Editions.    The  first  edition  of 
this  play  is  said  by  Langbaine,  who  appears  to    have 


63 

seen  it,  to  have  been  printed  in  1594,  and  it  was  certainly 
entered  at  Stationers'  Hall  on  February  6th  in  that  year, 
under  the  title  of  "  A  booke,  entitled  'A  Noble  Flistorie 
of  Titus  Andronicus.' '  No  copy  is  now  known  to  exist. 
In  1678,  this  tragedy  was  altered  by  Edward  Ravens- 
croft,*  and  produced  at  the  Theatre  Royal,  under  the 
title  of  "  Titus  Andronicus,  or  the  Rape  of  Lavinia."  It 
was  first  printed  and  published  in  1687.  In  this  altera- 
tion Ravenscroft  has  been  guilty  of  many  omissions, 
transpositions  and  additions,  the  latter  being  truly  bad, 
for  they  pervert  the  meaning,  destroy  the  sense,  are 
wanting  in  beauty,  in  fulness  of  thought,  and  are  of  the 
weak,  weakest.  Many  of  these  additions  are  quoted  by 
Steevens,  who,  in  his  criticisms  thereon,  says,  "  in  order 
that  justice  and  cookery  may  go  hand  in  hand,  Aaron  is 
at  once  racked  and  roasted  upon  the  stage."  Not 
content  with  thus  transgressing,  Ravenscroft  instead  of 
lessening  the  horrors  of  the  play,  has  added  to  them, 
for  he  makes  Tamora  kill  her  own  child,  and  causes 
the  Moor  Aaron  thus  to  remark  upon  the  deed: — 

"She  has  outdone  me,  even  in  mine  own  art, 
Outdone  me  in  murder,  killed  her  own  child  ! 
Give  it  me— I'll  eat  it !" 

PERICLES,  13  Editions.  This  tragedy  when  it  was 
originally  produced  was  very  successful.  This  is 
evidenced  by  the  prologue  to  "  The  Hog  hath  lost  his 
Pearl,"  produced  in  1613  and  written  by  Robert 
Tailor,— 

"  And,  if  it  prove  so  happy  as  to  please, 
We'll  say  'tis  fortunate,  like  Pericles."  t 


*  Bavenscroft  was  also  author  of  a  comedy  called  "  The  English  Lawyer,"  produced  at 
the  Theatre  Royal,  in  1678.  This  comedy  was  founded  on  the  Latin  play  of  "  Ignoramus," 
written  by  Ruggle,  of  Clare  College,  Cambridge,  and  was  enacted  by  the  students  of  Trinity 
College,  in  the  hall  of  that  Foundation,  before  King  James  I.,  in  March  1614. 

t  Betterton  when  young  was  famed  for  his  acting  of  the  part  of  Pericles.     According 


64 

In  1738,  was  produced  at  Covent  Garden  Theatre, 
"  Mariana,"  a  play  in  three  acts,  by  George  Lillo.  This 
is  an  alteration  of  Shakspere's  play,  in  which  Lillo  omits 
the  first  three  acts,  starting  with  the  fourth.  He 
changes  Dionyza  to  her  daughter  Philoten,  and  Leonine 
from  a  servant  into  a  young  lord,  who  is  ultimately 
poisoned  by  Philoten,  whom  he  stabs.  The  play  con- 
cludes in  the  Temple  of  Diana  at  Ephesus,  where 
Pericles  discovers  his  daughter,  Mariana.  The  ad- 
ditions made  by  Lillo  will  not  bear  comparison  with 
the  work  of  Shakspere,  for  they  are  essentially  weak, 
and  the  changes  which  he  has  effected  in  the  characters 
and  the  language  have  not  resulted  in  any  improvement 
of  the  original  play.  In  October,  1854,  this  tragedy,  as 
written  by  Shakspere,  was  produced  at  the  Sadler's 
Wells  Theatre.  This  is  not  a  great  acting  play,  yet  it 
was  very  successful.  The  scenic  effect  was  marked  by 
grace  and  grandeur,  and  such  points  as  fell  within  the 
actor's  part,  were  seized  on  and  rendered  with  true 
artistic  power.  Mr.  Phelps  was  Pericles,  and  Miss 
Heraud,  Marina. 

KING  LEAR,  54  Editions.  In  1681,  "The  History  of 
King  Lear "  was  revised,  altered  and  improved  by 
Nahum  Tate,  and  produced  at  Dorset  Garden  Theatre  : 
nine  editions  of  this  version  have  been  published — one 
without  date,  one  in  1699,  1712,  1745,  1756,  1759,  1760, 
1767  and  1771.  In  this  alteration,  Tate,*  in  his  wisdom 
and  knowledge  of  Shakspere,  struck  out  the  part  of  the 


to  Dowries  in  his  "  Eoseius  Anglicanus,"  p.  26,  he  was  "highly  applauded"  for  his  per- 
formance of  Pericles. 

*Tate's  alteration  was  condemned  by  Addison,  whose  judgment,  is,  however, 
impugned  by  Davies,  who  observes  "that  it  cannot  be  implicity  relied  on,"  for  "this 
excellent  author  has  taken  the  melancholy  side  of  the  question,  and  is,  in  my  opinion,  too 
great  an  advocate  for  the  "poisoned  bowl  and  bloody  dagger." — Dramatic  Miscellanies, 
vol.  ii.,  p.  263. 


65 

faithful  fool,  converted  Edgar  and  Cordelia  into  a  pair 
of  silly  lovers,  and  changed  the  termination  into  one  of 
comedy,  by  presenting  Lear  and  his  daughter  alive  and 
merry  at  the  fall  of  the  curtain.  In  the  preface  to  his 
edition  of  the  tragedy,  Tate  thus  modestly  speaks  of  his 
own  version  : — "  It  was  my  good  fortune  to  light  on  one 
expedient,  to  rectify  what  was  wanting  in  the  regularity 
and  probability  of  the  tale,  which  was  to  run  through 
the  whole,  a  love  betwixt  Edgar  and  Cordelia,  that  never 
changed  word  with  each  other  in  the  original.  This 
renders  Cordelia's  indifference  and  her  father's  passion 
in  the  first  scene  probable.  It  likewise  gives  counte- 
nance to  Edgar's  disguise,  making  that  a  generous 
design  that  was  before  a  poor  shift  to  save  his  life." 
The  quality  of  the  verse  is  shown  in  the  vapid  common 
place  utterances  which  occur  in  the  scenes  between 
Edgar  and  Cordelia.  In  the  first  act,  when  the  fair 
princess  is  about  to  be  consigned  to  the  duke  of  "  watery 
Burgundy,'*  Edgar  exclaims, — 

"  Cordelia,  royal  fair,  turn  yet  once  more, 
And  ere  successful  Burgundy  receive 
The  treasure  of  thy  beauties  from  the  king ; 
Cast  back  one  pitying  look  on  wretched  Edgar ! 
Cord.    Alas  !  what  would  the  wretched  Edgar  with 
The  more  unfortunate  Cordelia  ? 
Who  in  obedience  to  her  father's  will, 
Flies  from  her  Edgar's  arms  to  Burgundy."  {Exit. 

In  1767,  this  tragedy  was  altered  and  revised  by  George 
Colman  for  Covent  Garden  Theatre,  and  a  second 
edition  of  his  version  was  published  in  1771.  This 
alteration  by  Colman  is  an  improvement  upon  that  of 
Tate's,  for  in  the  first  four  acts  he  has  retained  more  of 
Shakspere's  language  than  Tate  did,  though  in  the  last 
act  Colman  fails  not  to  mangle  Shakspere.  Colman 
leaves  out  the  character  of  the  fool,  and  makes  the  conclu- 

H 


66 

\  f 

x*\ 

sion  a  happy,  instead  of  a  tragical  one.  In  1786,  it  was 
altered  by  David  Garrick,  who  made  many  omissions  of 
Tate's  language  and  restored  more  of  the  original  text. 
The  love  scenes  in  Garrick's  version  are  retained,  and  in 
the  fifth  act  he  follows  Tate's  version  instead  of  Shaks- 
pere's  play.  The  quarrel  scene  between  Goneril  and 
Regan  is  omitted  by  Garrick  in  his  version,  though  it 
was  preserved  in  that  of  Colman's.  In  1793,  it  was 
revised  and  altered  by  Ambrose  Eccles.  In  1800,  Na- 
hum  Tate's  version  was  newly  altered  and  revised  by 
J.  P.  Kemble  for  Drury  Lane  Theatre,  and  in  1808,  a 
second  edition  of  this  version  was  published.  When  this 
version  was  produced,  it  was  called  by  Kemble,  Shaks- 
pere's  Tragedy  of  King  Lear,  yet  this  was  not  the  fact, 
for  it  was  simply  Tate's  alteration  improved,  there  being 
no  less  than  five  characters  in  the  bill  which  cannot  be 
found  in  Lear  as  written  by  Shakspere.  Kemble's 
version  is  really  a  mosaic,  composed  of  alterations  made 
by  Tate,  Garrick  and  Colman.  Tate,  however,  is  the 
improver  that  Kemble  follows  most  and  whose  version 
he  most  relies  on. 

Act  i.  This  does  not  commence  as  Shakspere  wrote 
it,  but  as  Tate  altered  it.  Throughout  the  act  Kemble 
follows  Tate  very  closely,  restoring  some  few  lines  that 
Garrick  had  already  restored.  Oswald  receives  special 
instructions  to  enter  and  to  make  his  exit,  singing  tol  de 
rol,  tol  de  rol,  &c. 

Act  2.  Kemble  still  proceeds  with  Tate,  retaining 
the  mentioning  of  the  masque;  he  then  follows  Garrick's 
example  in  omitting  the  last  speech  but  one,  which  Tate 
had  made  Lear  speak. 

Act  3.  In  this  act  Kemble  accepts  some  of  Tate's 
worst  additions,  though  none  of  them  are  good,  the 
whole  being  intrinsically  bad.  When  Kent  and  Lear 


67 

are  gone  into  the  hovel,  Tate  makes  the  bastard, 
Edmund,  enter  and  speak  a  soliloquy,  and  then  receive 
two  letters  from  two  servants.  This  contemptible  scene 
was  rejected  by  Garrick,  but  restored  by  Kemble. 

Act  4.  Kemble  begins  with  the  last  scene  of  Tate's 
third  act,  omitting  the  soliloquy  which  Tate  had  given  to 
Gloucester.  He  follows  Colman' s  example  and  omits 
Gloucester's  fall,  and  he  also  omits  the  essential  part  of 
Oswald's  dying  speech,  which  Garrick  had  very  properly 
restored. 

Act  5.  Kemble  does  not  in  this  act,  materially 
differ  from  the  three  improvers,  Tate,  Garrick  and 
Colman,  though  he  does  differ  most  materially  from 
Shakspere.  The  scene  in  which  Edgar  and  Edmund 
fight  had  been  shamefully  mutilated  by  his  predecessors, 
yet  he  has  contrived  to  make  it  worse,  for  he  has 
restored  some  thirty  wretched  lines  written  by  Tate,  and 
these  lines  had  been  rejected  by  Garrick  and  Colman. 
Kemble's  alteration  is  considerably  worse  than  Garrick's, 
and  it  decidedly  establishes  the  fact  of  his  want  of 
power  to  understand  and  grapple  with  the  productions 
of  Shakspere.  He  may  have  been  a  critic  among  actors, 
but  he  never  possessed  sufficient  critical  discernment  to 
be  more  than  a  poor  pretender  among  critics. 

On  February  loth,  1823,  this  tragedy  was  played  at 
Drury  Lane  Theatre,  the  fifth  act  as  originally  written 
by  Shakspere  being  restored.  Elliston,  who  was  then 
lessee  of  the  theatre,  is  said  to  have  effected  this 
restoration  at  the  request  of  several  members  of  the 
literary  world,  and  it  certainly  redounds  to  his  credit  to 
have  done  so.  The  character  of  Lear  was  sustained  by 
Edmund  Kean,  and  Cordelia  by  Mrs.  W.  West.  This  re- 
vived version  was  played  several  other  nights  during  this 
season.  On  January  26,  1824,  King  Lear  was  played  at 


68 

Covent  Garden  Theatre,  and  though  the  tragedy  was 
announced  in  the  bill  of  the  day,  as  being  written  by 
Shakspere,  such  was  not  the  fact,  the  version  being  that 
of  Tate's,  with  the  part  of  Aranthe  retained.  On 
February  i5th,  1827,  the  same  version  was  played  at 
Drury  Lane  Theatre.  It  was  also  repeated  at  Covent 
Garden  Theatre  for  Young's  benefit,  on  May  2yth,  1827. 
In  1828,  it  was  played  at  the  Haymarket  Theatre  on 
July  2nd, — Lear,  Mr.  Gregory;  Cordelia,  Miss  F.  H. 
Kelly;  Aranthe,  Miss  Curtis.  In  1829,  on  March  3Oth, 
it  was  again  played  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre, — Lear,  Mr. 
Young ;  Cordelia,  Miss  Phillips  ;  Aranthe,  Miss  Nicol. 
The  presentation  of  the  versions  of  Tate  and  the  other 
improvers  of  this  great  tragedy  received  a  fatal  blow 
when  King  Lear  was  produced  at  the  Sadler's  Wells 
Theatre,  by  Mr.  Samuel  Phelps ;  who  with  that  reverent 
love  for  the  text  of  the  great  poet  which  he  always 
displayed  in  his  Shaksperean  revivals,  placed  this 
tragedy  on  the  stage  as  it  was  originally  written.  The 
scenic  appointments  were  thoroughly  in  keeping  with 
ideal  and  simple  style  of  the  fabulous  period  in  which 
the  story  is  laid.  The  order  and  text  of  the  scenes  was 
faithfully  followed  and  the  result  fully  justified  Mr.  Phelps' 
bold  adventure.  It  also  demonstrated  the  fulness 
of  knowledge  which  Shakspere  possessed  of  dramatic 
effect,  for  the  scenes  which  it  had  been  the  custom  to 
omit,  because  of  their  want  of  effect,  were  received  with 
marked  attention  and  great  applause.  Their  restoration 
most  triumphantly  showed  how  necessary  they  were  to 
elucidate  the  story  and  develop  the  truth  and  purpose  of 
the  tragedy.  Lear,  Mr.  S.  Phelps ;  Duke  of  Gloucester, 
Mr.  H.  Barrett ;  Kent,  Mr.  G.  Bennett ;  Edgar,  Mr.  H. 
Marston ;  Edmund,  Mrs.  F.  Robinson ;  Fool,  Miss  T. 
Bassano  ;  Cordelia,  Miss  Cooper. 


69 

ROMEO  AND  JULIET,  57  Editions.  This  tragedy  was 
first  altered  by  James  Howard,  who  made  it  into  a  tragi- 
comedy, preserving  both  Romeo  and  Juliet  alive;  so 
that,  when  the  play  was  revived  by  Sir  W.  Davenant's 
company,  it  was  played  alternately,  tragical  one  day  and 
tragi-comical  another,  for  several  times  together.  In 
1 680  was  produced  at  the  Dorset  Garden  Theatre,  "  The 
History  and  Fall  of  Caius  Marius,"  by  Thomas  Otway. 
About  one-half  of  this  tragedy  is  taken  from  Shakspere, 
the  incidents  are  somewhat  changed,  and  occasionally 
alterations  and  additions  are  made.  In  this  version 
Otway  makes  Lavinia  wake  in  the  tomb  before  young 
Marius  dies,  and  subsequent  adaptors  have  followed  this 
alteration,  which  kept  the  stage  for  sixty- four  years. 
The  changes  in  the  characters,  incidents  and  language 
are  very  great.  Mercutio's  beautiful  description  of  Queen 
Mab  is  much  marred,  and  the  lines  that  are  substituted 
throughout  the  tragedy  are  sadly  deficient  in  strength, 
sweetness  and  characterisation.  The  tragedy  weakly 
terminates  by  a  speech  of  Sulpitius,  taken  partly  from 
one  of  Mercutio's. 

Sutyi.  "  No ;  'tis  not  so  deep  as  a  well,  nor  so  wide  as  a  church 
door ;  but  'tis  deep  enough ;  'twill  serve  ;  I  am  peppered,  I  warrant, 
I  warrant,  for  this  world.  A  pox  on  madmen  hereafter  If  I  get  a 
monument,  let  this  be  my  epitaph  : — 

Sulpitius  lies  here,  that  troublesome  slave 

That  sent  many  honester  men  to  the  grave  ; 

And  died  like  a  fool,  when  he  had  lived  like  a  knave." 

Otway  in  his  prologue  admits  that  he  has  done  Shakspere 
wrong,  that  "  he  has  rifled  him  of  half  a  play," — and 
that— 

"  Amidst  his  baser  dross,  you'll  see  it  shine, 
Most  beautiful,  amazing,  and  divine." 

Three  editions  of  this  alteration   were   published,   one 


70 

in  1680,  one  in  1692,  and  one  in  1703.  In  1744, 
Theophilus  Gibber  revised  and  altered  this  tragedy, 
and  this  alteration  is  a  combination  of  Otway  and 
Shakspere,  for  what  additions  are  made  by  Gibber 
are  mainly  derived  from  Caius  Marius.  Another  feature 
in  this  alteration  is  the  breaking  up  of  the  rhymes  into 
blank  verse,  by  the  substitution  of  some  few  words  for 
synonymous  ones  of  a  different  termination,  and  the 
lopping  off  certain  extraneous  passages,  which  Gibber, 
in  his  great  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  the  poet's  works, 
thought  were  trivial,  prolix,  or  unnecessary  to  the 
general  purport  of  the  plot.  This  alteration  was  not 
printed  till  the  year  1748.  In  1746,  it  was  altered  and 
revised  by  Thomas  Sheridan,  and  produced  at  the 
Dublin  Theatre,  where  it  ran  nine  nights  to  very  full 
houses.  Among  other  alterations  made  by  Sheridan, 
was  the  transferring  of  Mercutio's  great  speech  relative 
to  Queen  Mab  to  the  part  of  Romeo.  In  1749,  it  was 
altered  by  David  Garrick,  and  produced  on  November 
29th,  at  Drury  Lane  Theatre.  In  this  version  a  grand 
funeral  procession  was  introduced  by  Garrick,  the  songs 
and  choruses  making  up  the  first  scene  of  act  5. 
Garrick  in  his  advertisement  to  the  first  printed  edition, 
expressly  states  that  "the  chief  design  of  the  altera- 
tions "  of  this  tragedy,  "  was  to  clear  the  original  as 
much  as  possible  from  the  jingle  and  quibble  which  were 
always  the  objections  to  reviving  it."  This  he  has  done 
so  well,  that  instead  of  improving  upon  the  original  text, 
he  most  completely  demonstrates  how  little  he  under- 
stood the  greatness  of  the  poet  he  sought  to  improve, 
and  how  weak,  futile  and  spiritless  are  his  additions.  In 
scene  5,  act  5,  he  has  been  most  busy  with  his  additions 
and  alterations,  so  that  when  the  scene  was  presented, 
it  was  a  mixture  compounded  of  Shakspere,  Otway  and 


71 

Garrick.  Juliet  is  in  the  tomb  and  she  awakes, 
exclaiming : — 

Jul.    "  Where  am  I  ?  defend  me ! 

Rom.   She  speaks,  she  lives  :  and  we  shall  still  be  bless' d. 
My  kind  propitious  stars  o'erpay  me  now 
For  all  my  sorrows  past — rise,  rise,  my  Juliet, 
And  from  this  cave  of  death,  this  house  of  horror, 
Quick  let  me  snatch  thee  to  thy  Romeo's  arms, 
There  breathe  a  vital  spirit  in  thy  lips, 
And  call  thee  back  to  life  and  love.         {takes  her  hand. 

Jul.   Bless  me  !  how  cold  it  is  !  who's  there  ? 

Rom.  Thy  husband, 

'Tis  thy  Romeo,  Juliet ;  rais'd  from  despair 

To  joys  unutt'rable  !   quit,  quit  this  place, 

And  let  us  fly  together.  \brings  her  from  tomb. 

Jul.   Why  do  you  force  me  so — I'll  ne'er  consent — 

My  strength  may  fail  me,  but  my  will's  unmov'd — 
I'll  not  wed  Paris, — Romeo  is  my  husband." 

Jul.   "  Oh,  let  me  hear  some  voice 

Besides  my  own  in  this  drear  vault  of  death. 

Rom.  She  is  my  wife — our  hearts  are  twin'd  together — 
Capulet  forbear — Paris  loose  your  hold — 
Pull  not  my  heart-strings  thus — they  crack — they  break. 
Oh,  Juliet !  Juliet !  \dies. 

On  the  entrance  of  the  friar,  Juliet  becomes  vehement, 
says,  that  "Romeo  is  here  still,  and  I  will  hold  fast; 
they  shall  not  tear  him  from  me;"  threatens  to  stab 
herself  if  the  friar  should  go  nearer  to  her,  and  ulti- 
mately effects  her  purpose.  Six  other  editions  of  this 
version  were  printed.  It  was  again  altered  and 
published  as  "  Capulet  and  Montague ;  or  The  Tragical 
Loves  of  Romeo  and  Juliet ; "  but  the  author's  name  is 
not  known,  nor  was  the  edition  dated.  In  1 8 1 1 ,  Garrick's 
version  was  revised  by  J.  P.  Kemble,  and  a  second 
edition  was  published  in  1814.  On  Thursday,  November 
3rd,  1859,  a  burlesque  upon  this  tragedy  was  produced 
at  the  Strand  Theatre.  It  was  written  by  Mr.  Andrew 
Halliday,  and  a  second  edition  was  published  in  1872. 


72 

HAMLET,*  78  Editions.  In  1771,  this  tragedy  was 
altered  by  David  Garrick  for  Drury  Lane  Theatre. 
Garrick's  version,  however,  was  never  printed,  although 
it  kept  the  stage  nine  years.  This  tragedy  had  been 
hitherto  untouched  by  English  adaptors  and  improvers, 
and  this  literary  shame  was  left  to  be  accomplished  by 
the  same  Garrick  who  perpetrated  the  ridiculous  farce  of 
the  Shakspere  Jubilee  at  Stratford-upon-Avon  in  the 
year  1769.  In  this  version  the  acts  were  divided 
differently,  for  Garrick  thought  the  first  act  too  long, 
and  that  it  had  a  tendency  to  drag  in  its  representation, 
so  he  divided  it  into  two,  ending  the  first  act  with 
Hamlet's  determination  to  watch  with  Horatio  and 
Marcellus.  He  also  materially  changed  the  language 
and  situations  of  some  of  the  other  scenes,  and  those  in 
which  the  King  and  Laertes  plot  to  destroy  Hamlet 
were  entirely  altered,  and  Laertes  was  made  a  much 
more  pleasing  and  interesting  character.  The  voyage 
to  England  and  the  execution  of  Rosencrantz  and 
Guilderstein  are  omitted.  The  slowness  with  which  the 
action  advances,  determined  Garrick,  in  his  treatment 
of  this  tragedy,  and  he  declared  that  he  would  not  quit 
the  stage  until  he  had  "  rescued  this  noble  play  from  the 
rubbish  of  the  fifth  act."  To  accomplish  this,  the  two 
gravediggers  and  Osric  were  entirely  struck  out,  and 
the  account  of  Ophelia's  death  omitted.  The  Queen, 
instead  of  being  poisoned  on  the  stage,  was  led  from  her 
seat  and  described  to  be  in  a  state  of  insanity,  in  con- 
sequence of  her  strong  sense  of  guilt.  Hamlet  and  the 
King  fight  a  duel,  in  which  the  King  is  killed,  and 


•During  the  time  of  the  suppression  of  the  theatres  by  the  Puritans,  "The  Grave- 
makers,  out  of  Hamlet,"  was  one  of  the  drolls  then  produced.  It  was  first  printed  in 
Kirkman's  "The  Wits,"  in  1672,  and  it  is  the  only  one  taken  from  Shakspere  in  the 
collection. 


73 

Hamlet  and  Laertes  die  of  wounds  mutually  inflicted. 
In  1780,  Hamlet,  as  written  by  Shakspere,  was  played 
at  the  Drury  Lane  Theatre  on  April  2ist,  for  Bannister's 
(junr.)  benefit.  Hamlet :  Bannister,  junr.  After  this 
night,  Garrick's  version  of  this  tragedy  was  played  no 
more.  Wilkinson  published  an  alteration  of  this  tragedy 
in  his  Wandering  Patentee.  In  this  version  the  acts 
are  divided  in  a  similar  manner  to  Garrick's,  but  he 
alters  the  termination.  The  King  fights  with  Hamlet 
and  is  killed,  the  Queen  rushes  out  shrieking,  and  Laertes 
kills  Hamlet.  Speeches  from  other  plays  are  also  intro- 
duced in  this  version,  in  particular,  the  fine  scene  of 
Cardinal  Beaufort's  death,  the  King  speaking  the  words 
which  belong  to  the  Cardinal.  In  1796,  J.  P.  Kemble 
altered  and  revised  this  tragedy,  three  other  editions  of 
this  version  being  published, — one  in  1800,  one  in  1804, 
and  one  in  1815.  In  1813,  a  travestie  of  this  tragedy 
was  produced  at  Covent  Garden  Theatre,  on  June  lyth. 
It  was  written  by  Mr.  John  Poole,  and  the  characters 
were  sustained  as  follows  : — Hamlet,  Matthews  ;  the 
King,  Blanchard  ;  Laertes,  Simmons ;  Horatio,  Hamer- 
ton ;  the  Ghost,  Taylor ;  the  Queen,  Mrs.  Listen ;  and 
Ophelia,  Mr.  Liston.  Six  editions  of  this  travestie  have 
been  published, — one  in  1810,1811,  1812,  1813,  1814  and 
in  1817.  At  the  Bath  Theatre,  on  February  ist,  1827,  a 
most  ridiculous  innovation  was  perpetrated  by  the  ma- 
nager. Macready  was  playing  Hamlet,  and  in  the  third 
act,  a  kind  of  opera  box  was  exhibited  between  the 
wings  to  the  audience,  with  a  stool  before  it ;  and  while 
Hamlet  was  speaking  his  soliloquy,  Miss  Taylor,  as 
Ophelia,  knelt  with  her  back  to  the  prince,  her  arms 
leaning  on  the  side  of  the  box,  as  if  she  was  leaning  on 
the  side  of  a  pew  in  a  church.  This  arrangement  was 
received  with  smiles  and  derisive  laughter.  In  1864,  an 
edition  of  this  trag'edy  was  published  in  the  Welsh 


74 

language,  under  the  title  of  "  Tywysog  Denmarc."  In 
1867,  a  second  travestie  was  published,  under  the  title  of 
"  A  Slice  of  Hamlet,"  by  the  author  of  "  The  Duck's 
Motto."  An  edition  of  this  tragedy,  reduced  to  three 
acts,  was  published  in  or  about  the  year  1870.  In  this 
version  the  first  scene  of  the  first  act  is  omitted,  so  also 
is  the  first  scene  of  the  second  act,  and  part  of  the  second 
scene.  In  the  third  act,  many  cuts  are  made  by  the 
editor,  Mr.  Walter  Gay,  who,  possessing  a  strong  desire 
for  shortening  the  tragedy,  judges  he  will,  by  such 
means,  confer  a  favour  on  "audiences  and  actors." 
Many  other  scenes  are  cut  out,  and  these,  to  use  Mr. 
Gay's  own  words,  "  are  of  no  material  importance  to  the 
play.  The  gravedigger's  scene  seems  to  have  been 
written  for  the  purpose  of  introducing  some  fun — also 
to  burlesque  two  lawyers  of  Shakspere's  time — to  bury 
Ophelia — to  get  up  a  quarrel  between  Laertes  and 
Hamlet,  and  to  allow  some  very  fine  remarks  upon 
Yorick,  who  is  not  otherwise  connected  with  the  plot. 
The  burial  of  Ophelia  is  uncalled  for,  as  would  be  the 
burial  of  Polonius  and  others  who  die  in  the  play. 
There  is  nothing  so  interesting  in  the  quarrel  that  the 
audience  need  see  it.  A  slight  allusion  to  it  is  sufficient, 
consequently  that  scene  can  well  be  omitted."  On 
Saturday,  January  25th,  1879,  Poole's  travestie  of  this 
tragedy  was  revived  at  the  Strand  Theatre. 

OTHELLO,*  52  Editions.  In  1670,  this  tragedy  un- 
derwent revision  at  the  hands  of  John  Dryden,  of  whose 
version  no  less  than  seven  other  editions  were  published, 
one  in  1674,  1681,  1687,  1695,1  1697,  1701  and  1705. 


*  The  opinion  held  by  Pepy's  of  Shakspere's  Othello  was  not  a  very  high  one,  for  he  thus 
wrote,  August  20th,  1666:— "To  Deptford  by  water,  reading  '  Othello,  Moor  of  Venice.' 
which  I  ever  heretofore  esteemed  a  mighty  good  play,  but  having  so  lately  read  '  The 
Adventures  of  Five  Houres,'  it  seems  a  mean  thing."— Diary,  vol.  III.,  p.  11. 

t  How  Shakspere  was  understood  at  the  latter  part  of  the  17th  century,  and  the 


75 

An  edition  of  another  alteration  was  published  without 
date,  under  the  title  of  "  Jealousy  exemplified  in  the 
awful  tragical  and  bloody  History  of  the  Lives  and 
untimely  deaths  of  Othello  and  Besdemona."  In  1804,. 
J.  P.  Kemble  altered  and  adapted  this  tragedy  for  Drury 
Lane  Theatre,  two  other  editions  of  this  version  being 
published, — one  in  1808,  and  one  in  1814.  In  March, 
1834,  a  travestie  of  this  tragedy,  written  by  Maurice  G. 
Bowling,  was  produced  at  the  Liver  Theatre,  Liverpool, 
and  was  acted  for  fifty  nights.  This  travestie  was 
afterwards  produced  at  the  Strand  Theatre,  London,  on 
May  1 6th,  1836,  and  met  with  great  success.  Several 
editions  of  this  travestie  were  published  by  Buncombe 
and  Lacy.  A  previous  travestie  of  this  tragedy,  written 
by  Colloy  Molloy  Westmacott,  had  been  produced  at  the 
Adelphi  Theatre  in  1834,  and  was  condemned.  In  1861, 
Mr.  C.  Fechter,  altered  and  adapted  "  Othello "  for 
representation  at  the  Princess  Theatre,  and  in  several 
of  the  scenes  of  his  adaptation  he  has  left  out  the  sense, 
and  not  unfrequently  the  poetry,  of  Shakspere. 


estimation  he  was  held  in  by  some  of  the  great  critics  of  that  time,  is  best  evidenced  by  a 
reference  to  "  A  Short  View  of  Tragedy,"  published  in  1693,  and  written  by  one  Thomas 
Eymer,  of  Gray's  Inn.  Speaking  of  Othello,  he  says,  "never  -was  any  play  fraught  like  this 
with  improbabilities"  (p.  92).  "The  foundation  of  the  play  must  be  concluded  to  be 
monstrous,  and  the  constitution  all  over,  to  be — 

"Most  rank, 
Foul  disproportion,  thoughts  unnatural," 

which  instead  of  moving  pity,  or  any  passion  tragical  and  reasonable,  can  produce  nothing 
but  horror  and  aversion"  (p.  14).  "In  the  neighing  of  a  horse,  or  the  growling  of  a 
mastiff,  there  is  a  meaning,  there  is  as  lively  expression,  and,  may  I  say,  more  humanity 
than  many  times  in  the  tragical  flights  of  Shakespear  "  (p.  96) .  "  Instead  of  representing 
men  and  manners,  turning  all  morality,  good  sense  and  humanity  into  mockery  and 
derision"  (p.  112).  "There  is  in  this  play  some  burlesk,  some  humour  and  ramble  of 
comical  wit,  some  show  and  some  mimickry  to  divert  the  spectators  ;  but  the  tragical  part 
is,  plainly,  none  other  than  a  bloody  farce,  wittunit  salt  or  savour"  (p.  144).  Of  Julius 
Ceesar,  he  says — "  Csesar  and  Brutus  were  above  his  conversation."  "  The  truth  is,  the 
author's  head  was  full  of  villainous,  unnatural  images,  and  history  has  only  furnished 
withgreatnam.es"  (p.  148).  Of  the  scene  with  Brutus  and  Cassius  he  thus  expresses  his 
opinion — "they  are  made  to  play  a  prize,  a  tryall  of  skill  in  huffing  and  swaggering,  like 
two  drunken  Hectors,  for  a  twopenny  reckoning"  (p.  155).  "  Shakespear's  genius  lay  for 
comedy  and  humour ;  in  tragedy  he  appears  quite  out  of  his  element ;  his  brains  e  ar 
turii'd,  he  raves  and  rambles,  without  any  coherence,  any  spark  of  reason,  or  any  rule  to 
controul  him,  or  set  bounds  to  his  phrenzy  "  (p.  156) . 


RECENTLY  PUBLISHED: 

In  crown  8vo.,  cloth,  fip.  viii.,  272,  Price  Five  Shillings, 

SHAKSPEREAN  FLY-LEAVES. 

A  NEW  AND  ENLARGED  EDITION. 

BY   H.    T.    HALL. 

LONDON  :— J.   RUSSELL  SMITH,   36,   SOHO  SQUARE  ; 
CAMBRIDGE  :—  H.    W.   WALLIS,    SIDNEY  STREET. 


SHAKSPEREAN  STATISTICS 

A   NEW  AND  ENLARGED   EDITION. 

BY  H.  T.  HALL. 

CAMBRIDGE  :— H.    W.    WALLIS,    SIDNEY  STREET. 

Demy,  8vo.     Two  Shillings. 


IN  PREPARATION, 

A  NEW  AND  ENLARGED  EDITION 

OF  THE 

CAMBRIDGE  DRAMATIC  ALBUM 


CAMBRIDGE  :      PRINTED     BY    FOISTER     AN!)    JAGG. 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


S4533T 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


